War On Terrorism

[Dancing David]

Hello:
Newbie that i am I hope to get the ball rolling: I hope that everyone is in agreement that terrorism is a horrible thing. (Side point: war is terrorism on a grander scale.)

Following the airplanes being flown into the World Trade Centers on Sept. 11, the president declared a 'war on terrorism'. However those of us who work in the dometic violence field would like to point something out.

Each year over two thousand women are killed by thier domestic partners, every day at least 200,000 women are battered by thier domestic partners. Domestic violence is believed to be active in at least ten percent of all households.

Everyday victims (women, children and men) are actively hurt, humiliated and harmed by thier domestic partners. Emotional abuse is always described as being worse than physical violence and it is prevalent in our society.

This is terrorism, and it begins at home. So shouldn't the 'war on terrorism' begin at home?

Thanks
dancing David

[Jocko]

Huh? Are you saying Saddam beats his wives?

[Segnosaur]

First of all, when you try to make one definition apply to a totally unrelated area (domestic abuse as terrorism), the term looses all meaning.

Secondly, you claim that 2000 women are killed by their partners every year. Well, more people than that are dying in Iraq every year, and Iraq has a population only 10% that of the U.S. In addition, torture is common, and I think getting stuffed feet-first into a paper shredder trumps getting punched.

Lastly, in many (unfortunately not all) cases of Domestic abuse, the victim has an 'out'. There are shelters to go to, they can call the police. There was no such option for the people in the twin towers.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
First of all, when you try to make one definition apply to a totally unrelated area (domestic abuse as terrorism), the term looses all meaning.

------------------------------
If terrorism is the systemic use of violence to control, dominate or change someone's opinion, then DV is terrorism
_________________________________

Lastly, in many (unfortunately not all) cases of Domestic abuse, the victim has an 'out'. There are shelters to go to, they can call the police. There was no such option for the people in the twin towers.

--------------------------
I agree that the people in the twin towers had no out.
However to say that victims of DV have an 'out' is like saying POWs who are brainwashed and allowed thier freedom have an out. Most victims are in great fear of thier life and feel that thier abuser is god like in thier power.

Domstic violence is terrorism, just private and secretive terrorism.

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by Dancing David



Domstic violence is terrorism, just private and secretive terrorism.

You could also say that international terrorism is domestic violence on a larger scale. Or that warfare is football with deadly weapons. Or that the Columbia disaster was just a much larger version of a car crash.

It's possible to draw comparisons to make certain specific points, but they really aren't related issues, as far as I can tell.

[c0rbin]

Dancing David, domestic violence is a horrible thing, but not one that a goverment can do anything about beyond prosecuting people who break the law. If someone hits you or someone you know, report it to the police. If that person is your spouse, get out of the relationship.

It would be nice if people protested spousal abuse with the same gusto used to protest a war against terrorist and regimes who abet them, but that is a different thread :)

[Bluegill]

Although, certainly, I'd like to see more done about both terrorism and domestic violence.

I'd gladly rally behind a War on Domestic Violence--although that would be a terrible name for a campaign.;)

Maybe "Campaign for Domestic Peace"?

[OdderMensch]

I agree that its awful, but it's not terrorism.

on the subject, I recall hearing that one of the first studys of domestic violence found that men were just as likely to be abused as women!

I have anecdotal proof of this, but any more signifigent studies would be apreciated.

My anecdote? A coworker of mine would come into work with bruises, black eyes, cut lips and tell everyone else that he got them "in class" (at the time, he was in my kung fu class) Well, I knew that was bull, so one day I asked him, he said his wife would just get angery sometimes and take it out on him. After the last stabbing incedent :eek: he moved out, but is now trying to "patch things up" :(

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Dancing David
...to say that Iraqis have an 'out' is like saying POWs who are brainwashed and allowed thier freedom have an out. Most Iraqis are in great fear of thier life and feel that Saddam is god-like in his power.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Dancing David


--------------------------
I agree that the people in the twin towers had no out.
However to say that victims of DV have an 'out' is like saying POWs who are brainwashed and allowed thier freedom have an out. Most victims are in great fear of thier life and feel that thier abuser is god like in thier power.

Domstic violence is terrorism, just private and secretive terrorism.

Most POWs do not have an open cell door where they can run to, and if they do escape, they do not usually make any effort to return.

Most victims of domestic violence can go to shelters. They can call the cops. It is far too disturbing when someone gives their abuser "one more chance", but it is people's right to make that decision. And they can keep trying to make that decision until they get it right. Victims of terrorism do not have that option.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Hello:
Newbie that i am I hope to get the ball rolling: I hope that everyone is in agreement that terrorism is a horrible thing. (Side point: war is terrorism on a grander scale.)

Following the airplanes being flown into the World Trade Centers on Sept. 11, the president declared a 'war on terrorism'. However those of us who work in the dometic violence field would like to point something out.

Each year over two thousand women are killed by thier domestic partners, every day at least 200,000 women are battered by thier domestic partners. Domestic violence is believed to be active in at least ten percent of all households.

Everyday victims (women, children and men) are actively hurt, humiliated and harmed by thier domestic partners. Emotional abuse is always described as being worse than physical violence and it is prevalent in our society.

This is terrorism, and it begins at home. So shouldn't the 'war on terrorism' begin at home?

Thanks
dancing David

Jesus H. Christ, you have got to be kidding me.

What about male victims of domestic violence? Domestic violence isn't something that is gender-neutralized in women. Women terrorize men every day in numbers greater than you posted because men are taught to "take it".

The matriarchal terror institutions, especially the one you work in, throw those numbers around like men are dragging women around against their will and beating them every minute of the day.

You want to talk about terror. Let's talk about the terror men face everyday. For example, if a chick gets pregnant she can go murder the baby without the father of the baby even knowing she is murdering it inside one of the feminazi concentration camps. If the father of the child doesn't want the baby and wants a chick to get an abortion and she says no, the "daddy" gets stuck paying child support for 18 years on a child he never wanted. Where is men's choice?

Or what about the communist state of California--all a chick has to do there is put down any name she wants as the father to her mutant babies and the guy she father shops for is screwed. California just passed a law that paternity can be established by the courts in California even if the father isn't in court. The "named-daddy" doesn't even have to show up and when he lives in Montana, lol, has never been to California and gets a child support bill, the courts won't let him fix the lie bestowed upon him by an extortionist chick.

Every 3 out of 10 babies popped out of women in America are not the biological children of whom she names as the father. Why can't men do anything about that? Is it because all women will look like whores when the truth is known that over 30% of all children born were conceived by men other than the named father (husband)?

The system is so overwhelmingly against men, the matriarchal terrorist state, that any man who marries is really using questionable judgement--and then women ponder why men who are self-employed run away from them when they hear the "marriage" word. Guys are learning fast that marriage is a scam and the entire women's movement is a shakedown and terrorization of men. Men take sex from women when they can get it and other than that--adios muchachas. Women created that climate in men so I have no sympathy for radical feminism whatsoever.

I know men who don't even hold doors open for women anymore. They let the doors slam in their face, especially when they are carrying things in their arms. Men also want women to end their hypocrisy and join the Selective Service and fight as infantry. Men who don't join face felony prosecution, loss of all government benefits for school and imprisonment. Women don't have to do jack and they get all the benefits. Men coming home in body bags from war in ratios of 98:2 that of women is discriminatory.

So you keep working at your mystical matriarchal victim center and believe the hype they are throwing around. You want to look at the true victims in America--look at men.

The entire women's movement is a scam and an extortionist shakedown against men. There are no "battered" women in America, only men.

JK

There's two sides to every coin.

Don't give me that its womans fault, either men screw around as well. Yes men get hit as well as women, men get raped by women too, but no way in hell can you blame women for it all.

Men are insecure over pregnancy because it happens inside our bodies and you can't see it happening, that why nature pulled the it looks like daddy(husband)? routine.

Women cock up and so do men. Yes I agree there are some real nasty gold diggers who are women but equally there are the same of men, just move along and deal without it's life and life is one heck of a b**tch.

If a woman wants to be a feminist fine but then they shouldn't whine when it gets tough, it doesn't work like that.

If a man slammed a door in my face while I had something in my arms god forbid a child he'd soon be flat out on his ass, thats not called for is it really?

One thing p***es me right off is if a woman starts bar room fight and then runs for help and hides behind a man to sort it out, sorry but you start a fight you finish it.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight



So you keep working at your mystical matriarchal victim center and believe the hype they are throwing around. You want to look at the true victims in America--look at men.

The entire women's movement is a scam and an extortionist shakedown against men. There are no "battered" women in America, only men.

JK

Gee, I don't hardly know how to respond. First I guess I need a fire extinguisher to deal with the flame. ;)

I never said that men weren't victims, personaly as a man in the domestic violence movement I am aware that men can be victims as well. The problem is that society is biased towards the perpetrator (notice this is a gender nuetral term), nuetrality leads to tolerance of abuse.

I regret the biasis that you say are perpetrated on men, however the Department of Justice (hardly a matriarchal institution) believes that most violence in domestic situations is perpetrated agains women.

Of course children are the major victims, but in Illinois we continue to act as though children are thier parent's property and they have no rights of thier own.

I wish that I worked a matriarchal vision center, that would be much more entertaining than working at a DV shelter. Of course being a nihilist, my vision would include all or nothing, not just matriarchal vision.

Peace, dancing David

[gnome]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Or what about the communist state of California--all a chick has to do there is put down any name she wants as the father to her mutant babies and the guy she father shops for is screwed. California just passed a law that paternity can be established by the courts in California even if the father isn't in court. The "named-daddy" doesn't even have to show up and when he lives in Montana, lol, has never been to California and gets a child support bill, the courts won't let him fix the lie bestowed upon him by an extortionist chick.

I doubt very much that there is nothing the "named-daddy" could do when faced with such a fraud. ANYONE can lie and unjustly force someone to defend themselves in court, the problem is not limited to women against men.

Every 3 out of 10 babies popped out of women in America are not the biological children of whom she names as the father.

This is a startling statistic... would you care to say where you got it from?

The entire women's movement is a scam and an extortionist shakedown against men. There are no "battered" women in America, only men.

None at all...? Not even one? Not possible that men and women sometimes get victimized?

[Bjorn]

Every 3 out of 10 babies popped out of women in America are not the biological children of whom she names as the father

This is a startling statistic... would you care to say where you got it from? Maybe he has 9 siblings? :rolleyes:

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by gnome


I doubt very much that there is nothing the "named-daddy" could do when faced with such a fraud. ANYONE can lie and unjustly force someone to defend themselves in court, the problem is not limited to women against men.



This is a startling statistic... would you care to say where you got it from?



None at all...? Not even one? Not possible that men and women sometimes get victimized?

Check out this website here for the facts about the raping of men and matriarchal extortion against men. (http://www.paternityfraud.com)

As quoted from the site: Father Shopping is No Way to Establish Paternity. Did you know that in over 30% of tested paternity cases the wrong man is identified as the father? Once the Court has established paternity that man is responsible for paying child support for the next 18 years (or more) -- even if the man is later proven not to be the biological father. This gives a big incentive for a promiscuous female (including married women) to identify the highest earner from among her sexual partners as the father. There is no penalty for a female if she knowingly commits paternity fraud. Even in cases where the mother and true biological father have later married -- the man originally identified as the father has still been forced to pay child support to that couple for a child that he had nothing to do with. When paternity fraud is discovered the Courts frequently cut off the wrongly identified father's contact with the children, yet still require him to pay child support. Child support is no small amount of money -- it can be up to 50%, if not more of a person's net income. Wrongly forcing a man to pay for children he did not father can wreck his life and prevent him from being able to afford to provide for his own family. It is wrong and should be a criminal offense!

National Paternity Fraud Statistics, 28% in 1999, ~30% in 2000, 29.06% or 90,227 in 2001) of males DNA tested for paternity were NOT the biological fathers. Source: American Association of Blood Banks (AABB) - Annual Parentage Study.

Clear now?

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Every 3 out of 10 babies popped out of women in America are not the biological children of whom she names as the father

Maybe he has 9 siblings? :rolleyes:

No, men need to be very careful in society today. There is a criminal extortion racket going on against men in this country and it is highly sophisticated (lawyers, courts, feminazi groups, etc).

Unless that get fixed I advise no man to ever get married because it just opens them up to unpredictable criminal extortion from which they cannot defend.

JK

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


No, men need to be very careful in society today. There is a criminal extortion racket going on against men in this country and it is highly sophisticated (lawyers, courts, feminazi groups, etc).

Unless that get fixed I advise no man to ever get married because it just opens them up to unpredictable criminal extortion from which they cannot defend.

JK

No worries here...got my vasectomy years ago.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by pyrrho2000


No worries here...got my vasectomy years ago.

I wouldn't mind getting married sometime but with no-fault divorce it lets one partner walk away from something that takes years to build. The divorce industry is a racket and the best defense for men against it is not to enter its ruthless matriarchal terror-trap.

JK

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I wouldn't mind getting married sometime but with no-fault divorce it lets one partner walk away from something that takes years to build. The divorce industry is a racket and the best defense for men against it is not to enter its ruthless matriarchal terror-trap.

JK

You know, the more I learn about you, the less I like you. At least you have advertised that you won't be propagating your genes.

What SHOULD we have for divorce law. Do tell. Please.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


.

Clear now?

JK
Actually...Its not clear at all and you know it. You have taken a statistic from contested paternity cases...I'll just accept this statistic as stated....30% of tested paternity cases show the father is someone else.

You extrapolate this to say that 30% of ALL children in America have a father other than the one that lives with Mummy???????

I don't believe you cannot see the flaw in this conclusion.

If 30% of people who are tested for cancer turn out to have cancer would you conclude that 30% of the general population has cancer? No..... Obviously a contested paternity case occurs when someone has a reasonable idea that Daddy is not really Daddy. Just as people who are tested for cancer are tested because there is already a suspicion that it is there.

This has been bashed out a number of times in previous threads but you just go quiet on it and trot the statistic out again later.....Can you (once and for all) accept your 30% figure is not valid for the general population?

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I wouldn't mind getting married sometime but with no-fault divorce it lets one partner walk away from something that takes years to build. The divorce industry is a racket and the best defense for men against it is not to enter its ruthless matriarchal terror-trap.

JK


ahem Mister men walk away with it with everything as well so it is not all matriarchal.

I agree fully the divorce market is a racket been there already the lawyers got rich.

Next man if I ever want to marry him signs on the dotted line it's all his fault and I get everything, Nah what's mine is mine what's his is his.

Can we live in sin JK:D or can I be cruel and marry you, I will let you wear the meringue dress ok?

[gnome]

JK, it is clear (and I never denied) that fraudulent paternity claims are a problem.

The "30%" issue was handled by Fool just fine.

Care to answer the other question I actually asked?


The entire women's movement is a scam and an extortionist shakedown against men. There are no "battered" women in America, only men.

None at all...? Not even one? Not possible that men and women sometimes get victimized?

Can you admit even ONCE that you made a mistake in something you said, or overstated your case?

It would improve your credibility so much to just that you are fallible, as are the rest of us.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by The Fool

Actually...Its not clear at all and you know it. You have taken a statistic from contested paternity cases...I'll just accept this statistic as stated....30% of tested paternity cases show the father is someone else.

You extrapolate this to say that 30% of ALL children in America have a father other than the one that lives with Mummy???????

I don't believe you cannot see the flaw in this conclusion.

If 30% of people who are tested for cancer turn out to have cancer would you conclude that 30% of the general population has cancer? No..... Obviously a contested paternity case occurs when someone has a reasonable idea that Daddy is not really Daddy. Just as people who are tested for cancer are tested because there is already a suspicion that it is there.

This has been bashed out a number of times in previous threads but you just go quiet on it and trot the statistic out again later.....Can you (once and for all) accept your 30% figure is not valid for the general population?

You have it all wrong Fool. The pool that those tests were taken were tests done by the courts, testing at hospitals when children were born, etc. They are a very accurate sample across the entire spectrum of the paternity question as it pertains to men and that testing proves conclusively that 30% of all children born in the United States are not the biological children of the "named daddy".

JK

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by Biker Babe


Next man if I ever want to marry him signs on the dotted line it's all his fault and I get everything, Nah what's mine is mine what's his is his.



I recall the judgement in a South American court case some years back (and no I don't have the source).

The jugdgment of the divorce was that what the man had when he came into the marraige is his, what he earned in the marraige is his, what she earned in the marraige is his and what she owned prior to the marraige is his. Her duty had been to service him and his friends.

Seriously, my biggest problem with divorces is the liklihood of the mother getting custody of the children. This seems unfair to me.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You have it all wrong Fool. The pool that those tests were taken were tests done by the courts, testing at hospitals when children were born, etc. They are a very accurate sample across the entire spectrum of the paternity question as it pertains to men and that testing proves conclusively that 30% of all children born in the United States are not the biological children of the "named daddy".

JK Jedi - 30% of those who are tested doesn't equal 30% of the population. Final answer.

Those wo are suspiscious (with or without a reason to be) tend to test more often, just to mention one reason why you are wrong.

(You know this from a previous thread, like Fool is pointing out. Do you have some strong urge to say something stupid today?) :rolleyes:

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You have it all wrong Fool. The pool that those tests were taken were tests done by the courts, testing at hospitals when children were born, etc. They are a very accurate sample across the entire spectrum of the paternity question as it pertains to men and that testing proves conclusively that 30% of all children born in the United States are not the biological children of the "named daddy".

JK
JK
Could you point me to these figures. I have never heard of courts doing randomised medical research. Can you Identify a single study where the sample was random across the population? All the figures quoted in the site you linked are from paternity court cases, ie somebody already suspects paternity is not clear.

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Hello:
Newbie that i am I hope to get the ball rolling: I hope that everyone is in agreement that terrorism is a horrible thing. (Side point: war is terrorism on a grander scale.)

Following the airplanes being flown into the World Trade Centers on Sept. 11, the president declared a 'war on terrorism'. However those of us who work in the dometic violence field would like to point something out.

Each year over two thousand women are killed by thier domestic partners, every day at least 200,000 women are battered by thier domestic partners. Domestic violence is believed to be active in at least ten percent of all households.

Everyday victims (women, children and men) are actively hurt, humiliated and harmed by thier domestic partners. Emotional abuse is always described as being worse than physical violence and it is prevalent in our society.

This is terrorism, and it begins at home. So shouldn't the 'war on terrorism' begin at home?

Thanks
dancing David
Anyone who flys a plane into their home to kill their wife should be sent to prison for life and be made an example of what happens when you do this sort of thing.
Other than that I'm sure you had a point but I missed it. Please write again and be clearer.
Appreciate it. Thanks!!!

Originally posted by Gods Advocate


I recall the judgement in a South American court case some years back (and no I don't have the source).

The jugdgment of the divorce was that what the man had when he came into the marraige is his, what he earned in the marraige is his, what she earned in the marraige is his and what she owned prior to the marraige is his. Her duty had been to service him and his friends.

Seriously, my biggest problem with divorces is the liklihood of the mother getting custody of the children. This seems unfair to me.

Not anymore Dads can get fulltime custody too, well in the UK they can and do.

[EvilYeti]

I don't see domestic violence as problem that can ever be solved, as the victims themselves, for the most part, put up with it.

When an individual is battered the first time, I will grant that its totally the fault of their partner. After that though, the blame falls equally on both parties. No one is "forced" to be in a relationship, I have no sympathy for those that chose to remain with chronic abusers.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
I don't see domestic violence as problem that can ever be solved, as the victims themselves, for the most part, put up with it.

When an individual is battered the first time, I will grant that its totally the fault of their partner. After that though, the blame falls equally on both parties. No one is "forced" to be in a relationship, I have no sympathy for those that chose to remain with chronic abusers.

Its rarely that simple. Saying somebody could always walk is easy from an external position. In any relationship there is often a lot invested in the relationship. If my partner turned violent on day 2 of a relationship I could walk away easily. If we have been together a long time, shared assets, kids...Its a whole life you are expecting someone to just walk away from. Often the abusive person is very skillful at manipulating the victim to ensure they remain in the passive victim role.

If your partner lost thier temper tonight and hit you would you leave? If they cried and begged you to believe it would never happen again? Thats how it starts, It then becomes easier and easier to stay when it does happen again......and again.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
I don't see domestic violence as problem that can ever be solved, as the victims themselves, for the most part, put up with it.

When an individual is battered the first time, I will grant that its totally the fault of their partner. After that though, the blame falls equally on both parties. No one is "forced" to be in a relationship, I have no sympathy for those that chose to remain with chronic abusers. I'm not sure if you're correct here.

I've seen the situation quite close, and I remember I was thinking that it was some twisted Stockholm Syndrome. The woman would run away, show us her bruises, cry and swear, but next day she was back there and if we reminded her she would claim it wasn't as bad as she had told us the night before and in many ways she has provoked him.

Some of us promised up to beat the **** out of the guy, but we were stopped when the woman begged us not to (and also hinted that his revenge would be on her, not on us).

Anyhow, physical force to prove one's in charge is sick.

[Hellcat]

It was discussed here as well (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13955)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Supercharts

Anyone who flys a plane into their home to kill their wife should be sent to prison for life and be made an example of what happens when you do this sort of thing.
Other than that I'm sure you had a point but I missed it. Please write again and be clearer.
Appreciate it. Thanks!!!

The point is very simple, there is thing that is called domestic violence and it is prevalent in our society. men hurt women, women hurt men, both hurt children.
Domestic violence is a crime that nobody wants to talk about, if people did it to starangers then it would be considered a crime, but because people do it in the context of a relationship everyone blames the victim and looks the other way.

The point is that everyone got rightly worked up about the airplanes flying into the World Trade Center: a great tragedy. Everyday people are brainwashed, threatened and hurt by thier familes and domestic partners, just looking at the children alone the numbers are mind numbing.

The tactics that perpetrators use are exactly the ones that terrorists use, therefore I am just trying to draw attention to this horrible crime by drawing an analogy to a topical event that we are all familiar with.

To those who think it is the victims fault for staying in the relationship: thats just a tactic to keep yourself from thinking about what is really happening, might as well blame Elizabeth Smart for staying with the couple that kidnapped her.
Think about how hard it is to end a normal relationship and all the anguish people go through to end one. Then add all the mind control and other doo-doo that perps use to control the victim, it is very much the Stockholm Syndrome. But everyone gets into not thinking about the perpetrator being in the wrong, no lets blame the victim because thats easier. And lets just forget about the children who are innocent victims because it is easier to blame the victim.

Have you ever had a freind who turned against thier family, ver wonder why they did, maybe it was because their dad kicked them up and down the stairs, or because thier mom locked them in thier room. Children have no choice to walk away.

Just asking people to think about it and maybe find some compassion in thier hearts for the victims of abuse.

Peace,
dancing David

[gnome]

JK? I'm getting awfully close to drawing a conclusion here...

are you running away from your own statement?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Dancing David, domestic violence is a horrible thing, but not one that a goverment can do anything about beyond prosecuting people who break the law. If someone hits you or someone you know, report it to the police. If that person is your spouse, get out of the relationship.

It would be nice if people protested spousal abuse with the same gusto used to protest a war against terrorist and regimes who abet them, but that is a different thread :)

If Bush could convince people that we needed to go to Iraq to kill people and make the US a better place to live, I would think he could figure out a way to battle domestic violence and make the US a better place to live.

But domestic violence is not terrorism. It is worse.

It would be nice if people protested spousal abuse with the same gusto used to protest Saddam's behavior, but that is a different thread :)