Where can I find Muslim Matrimonial site with reverts to ISLAM? Prefer. from former USSR or Russia, Bulgaria?
May 22, 7394 by spiritual_edu | Posted in Marriage & Divorce
Looking for correct Islamic sites for marriage - but with many reverts ladies. Preferably from European countries and former USSR.
Well if you vigorous in a European country there are a lot of Mosques/Masjids. You should try to get married the traditional way i.e. going to the Mosque and asking the Imam about a perceptive Muslim revert girl.
Really I discourage the internet thing because it's not good on many levels. And new Muslims should not be fooled by other Muslims into meditative that dating sites are ok. If they are reverts, we should be helping them learn the rights and wrongs, and not lead them into harmful things.
It's a in reality that revert Muslims practice their Islam better than "born" Muslims. So lets keep that be biased going. Go to the Mosque man. Don't encourage that internet stuff.
coriafanforlife | May 22, 8992
To all military: Would any of you prefer the Sec. of Defense to be in Charge of a war, and not the President?
Aug 10, 2007 by xenypoo | Posted in Military
I am not asking about Mr. Bush, later on, but any president.
LBJ refused to allow ports to be bombed in Vietnam, for example, cutting off a means for the Soldiers to win, since USSR was delivering arms, and supplies through those ports to the Viet-Kong.
Bill Clinton wouldn't assign the Black Hawks in Somalia, to fire on the enemy there.
Do you think the Secretary of Defense would act more appropriately, were he/she in charge of tactics for ending approval of your missions, and know what the blank they were doing in a war, better than a president? Thank you for your time, Ladies, and Gentlemen.
Or Secretary of Claim for that matter?
david m, you're brilliant!
Yes, I did forget to mention that these two presidents, LBJ, and Clinton went against the advice of our Generals in both Vietnam, and Somalia.
Thanks yall, you are being so illuminating!
Strictly speaking neither is in liability in a war. But your sentiment is sensible in that politicians declare war and then should hand the control of it to the generals and admirals.
The problem comes in that politicians set the rules of promise and there is no easy way round that.
Margaret Thatcher declared war over the Falklands and handed control to the services. They then went back to her and explained that the rules of spot left the Belgrano as a real risk to their fleet. After listening to them she then changed the rules of engagement to allow it to be sunk. The moralizing here is that she listened to the military when they said their troops lives were at risk and that they could therefore not control the war effectively unless the ROE was changed.
Lugubriously the US has a very good and mighty military that has been hamstrung by unrealistic ROEs for years. Part of the failure in Vietnam were the stringent restrictions imposed in the ROEs.
The puzzle is that American ROEs are based on the politics for home consumption, to get elected again and not - definitely not - in the interest of the troops on the ground or the usher of the battle.
But some American ROEs are causing real problems for the opposite reason. Look at what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan - to get one reasonable rebel the ROEs allow for large numbers of collateral damage. Political speak for killing many honest civilians to get one target. That puts the local population against America and it's troops, gives huge propoganda to the antipathetic forces and makes America look bad in the eyes of the world. Another political decision on ROEs because they do not want troops on the motive involved where the people at home in the US may see a soldier or two killed - therefore the political decision was made to allow the ROEs to promote missiles and bombing aware it would kill innocents rather than risk the political backlash if Americans got killed.
Oracle | Aug 10, 2007
Russland Eishockey , Cccp JackeSowjetunion 1945, Sowjetunion Fahne- Das Russland Haus. Aus Russland
USSR ladies
You all things considered ask yourself a question why a great number of smart Russian girls want to marry foreign men, and what Russian brides are hopping from their connection. All of them are looking for their RIGHT person, their SOULMATE with whom they may feel special and homely. Russian girlies wish to emolument highest chances and they apply many possible charms. As shows practice, women marry in a year and a half since registration in medium. Women set few aims, not just to go to live abroad but to marry allied person, and frequently they attain their goals.
One more fait accompli why CIS brides want to meet beloved beyond the seas is not enough number of USSR guys of nubility. Besides, Russian men are more under the risk of ill-behaved diseases, from them arrhythmia is on the first positions. As a consequence of this, in huge towns every 8 USSR ladies in the years higher then 34 are not be able to fulfil a man to create a family. In the same time, USSR men got a bad reputation of their unbridled dipsomania.
Except drinking USSR males have many extra ''pleasant'' descriptions as laziness, faithlessness, no requisition to progression. No doubt that not all USSR males are like this, just these men, who are blest exception of these, are at presant husbands.
USSR women like lots of descriptions of foreigners, besides their way of moving spirit, ladies adore manner how foreigners act with minors and worry about their wellbeing. As only nice spirit and working way of life can go along with people vigorous for rather old period of life.
Some USSR ladies appear in the bureau in the painful time of their being. It may be divorcement, separation with revered or a loss. Thus entering the marriage agency is a highly important chance and a following step in USSR lady mortal. Correspondences with a guy leave lady a chance once more to feel that she is loved. You can't recognize that lady in a year, or afterwards the marriage, her beam, glance, step, sexy words, everything says that...
In the main
In general
