Friends probably holds up better because the Barney character just doesn't work today. So much of his humour is just cringe. Friends' PG-quality ironically makes it more suitable since there are no characters reveling in sexual assault.
God what i would do for Nokias to be viable again. I actually still have my old 6085. Looks brand new, still gets 2 weeks of battery. If it wasn't for banking apps I would still be using that thing
Regarding this whole "indigineity = refugee movement", it's important to keep rebutting this nonsense. You can't be indigenous to a place for 2,000 years and come back and move into someone's home like thanks for saving my spot man, your house is mine now.
The indigenous Jewish population of Palestine was entirely gone by the time of the Crusades. For example, Moses Ben Nachman estimated in 1267 that there were just 2 Jewish families in all of Jerusalem. According to the Jewish Virtual Library the Jewish population of Palestine in 1517 was 1.7%. And according to the most authoritative work on this subject, "The population of Palestine: population statistics of the late Ottoman period and the Mandate" by Justin McCarthy, the Jewish population of Palestine just before the mass emigration movement of Russian and European Jews and British colonialism - was just 3.8%. Here is a screenshot of the population table from page 10.
So at the turn of the 20th century the Jewish population of Palestine was less than 4%. When Palestine was 'handed over' for the creation of a Jewish state in 1947, Palestinian Muslims and Christians were the majority in every single province except Jaffa, and they owned the majority of the land in every single province. There are more Muslims in France and the UK than that. You don't go from 3% to 80% and strip everyone else of voting rights if you're a refugee movement.
Are you denying Islam by doctrine isn't imperialistic?
Yes I deny it. It's a core part of my belief system and how I was raised and it's completely uncontroversial among a wide segment of Muslims, if not the vast majority.
Here for example, is a snippet from the translation of the Quran by Leopold Weiss, aka Mohammad Asad:
"This and the following verses lay down unequivocally that only self defence (in the widest sense of the word) makes war permissible for Muslims. Most of the commentators agree in that the expression la ta'tadu signifies, in this context, "do not commit aggression"; while by al-mu'tadin "those who commit aggression" are meant.
The defensive character of a fight "in God's cause" - that is, in the cause of the ethical principles ordained by God - is, moreover, self-evident in the reference to "those who wage war against you", and has been still further clarified in 22:39 - "permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged" - which, according to all available Traditions, constitutes the earliest (and therefore fundamental) Qur'anic reference to the question of jihad, or holy war (see Tabari and Ibn Kathir in their commentaries on 22:39).
That this early, fundamental principle of self-defence as the only possible justification of war has been maintained throughout the Qur'an is evident from 60:8, as well as from the concluding sentence of 4:91, both of which belong to a later period than the above verse.
In view of the preceding ordinance, the injunction "slay them wherever you may come upon them" is valid only within the context of hostilities already in progress (Razi), on the understanding that "those who wage war against you" are the aggressors or oppressors (a war of liberation being a war "in God's cause")....
This is completely uncontroversial and you can find however many mainstream Muslims you want who believe in these exact words as explained by Weiss. Here is the mainstream Sunni influencer Adnan Ibrahim saying verbatim "the Quran is very very clear that there is no justification for war except in self defence." This guy is a totally normal sunni conservative. Here is the Grand Mufti of Tripoli making the same point on Saudi tv. He explicitly states that religiously jihad is to be done only in self defence, and that this is different from what he calls "jihad by demand/order" which is fighting for a state. Again: totally regular conservative establishment guy not any kind of radical renegade thinker. This is why far right movements and thinkers in the Islamic world went to such lengths to justify attacks on the US and others by arguing that as democracies the entire population is culpable, and that by stationing military bases in Arab countries and supporting Arab dictators, they have initiated the war. That's the standard terrorist group argument
Results inconclusive, further research required
Classic westoid behaviour 👌. Perving on Middle Eastern women in a thread about how the evil patriarchy in Iran subjugates women. It's true that westoids will never be happy in life until every woman on earth ends up on pornhub. If you can't google hot pics of ladies in your society then is your society even functional?
Your natural instinct is to perv on the woman and imply you need to see her naked to establish her hotness. And you lack the self awareness to see how your society socialized you into this monkey behaviour where every woman is an attainable piece of ass online. Like an entire society afflicted with Tinder-brain. Objectify, Commodify, rate hotness, see if porn available, move on to the next one.
You think this money will go to "old men running the government"? It goes into the state's budget like all other revenue. This complaint is like complaining speeding fines will go to old men running the government.
Whether you agree or disagree with these fines, it's indisputable that iran still has a more functional, less corrupt government than say, Egypt or Saudi or Kuwait or Iraq or any number of regional US allies
Time for me to join the Green Party. Labour is long dead and Your Party seems dormant