Now all she needs is a snappy nickname, get to it Languish.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/02/nation/la-na-terror-arrest3-2010apr03
QuoteColorado mom arrested in 'JihadJane' terror case
Jamie Paulin-Ramirez had been held and released in Ireland and was arrested when she returned to the U.S. Officials say she went to Europe with her young son to attend a training camp with 'JihadJane.
April 02, 2010|By Nicholas Riccardi
Reporting from Denver — A Colorado mother whose family said she flew to Ireland last year to join a possibly violent Islamic group was charged Friday with working with a Pennsylvania woman to attend a terrorist training camp in Europe.
Jamie Paulin-Ramirez, 31, had been arrested in Ireland last month with six others on suspicion of planning to assassinate Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks, whose drawing of the prophet Muhammad with the body of a dog outraged many Muslims. Paulin-Ramirez, from Leadville, Colo, was later released by Irish authorities.
Advertisement
She returned voluntarily to the United States and was arrested Friday in Philadelphia, according to a statement from the Department of Justice. It did not give details of why she returned.
Federal prosecutors added Paulin-Ramirez to a case against Colleen R. LaRose, 46, who went by the online name "JihadJane" and was charged in a sealed indictment in October with recruiting people to kill Vilks.
According to the new indictment unveiled Friday, LaRose last summer invited Paulin-Ramirez to join her at a "training camp" in Europe. The day after she arrived, Paulin-Ramirez married another participant, a man with whom she had corresponded online.
The charges against Paulin-Ramirez carry a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
Paulin-Ramirez's mother, Christine Mott, said Friday that she had not heard from her daughter since her arrest in Ireland and had not been aware she was back in the U.S. The two became estranged last year as Paulin-Ramirez, a nursing student, became obsessed with studying Islam online and began corresponding with people her mother viewed as extremists.
Paulin-Ramirez took her 6-year-old son, Christian, to Ireland last year and taught him that non-Muslims would burn in hell, Mott said. The boy apparently returned with his mother and is now in Pennsylvania's dependency system, Mott said.
Mott, who lives on disability and said she cannot afford a lawyer, said her greatest concern was getting the child back. "He's seen his mother arrested twice," she said in a telephone interview, sobbing. "He needs to be back here and out of this madness."
Mujahedin Mum?
QuoteAccording to the new indictment unveiled Friday, LaRose last summer invited Paulin-Ramirez to join her at a "training camp" in Europe. The day after she arrived, Paulin-Ramirez married another participant, a man with whom she had corresponded online.
And they say we think with our dicks...
Idiot single mom gets into radical islam because some lunatic wants to marry her. Film at 11.
Also:
QuotePaulin-Ramirez took her 6-year-old son, Christian, to Ireland last year and taught him that non-Muslims would burn in hell, Mott said.
Isn't this what Christians (or at least Evangelicals) tell their kids about non-Christians (or gays, or liberals)?
Must you bring gays into every thread? MUST YOU?! :hmm:
Did she change her kid's name?
With that name, that kid wouldn't survive long among muslims.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 04, 2010, 04:53:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2010, 03:56:55 AM
Mujahedin Mum?
:hmm: ... I like it.
'Mum' is some idiotic Euro thing. We always say 'Mom' here. You fail at being American, Tim. :(
btw, have you guys seen pics of this chick yet? Woof. :x
Seriously, she looks like she has acromegaly, like Andre the Giant or something.
Wait, it's now a crime to kill Swedes?
Quote from: Caliga on April 04, 2010, 07:23:09 AM
btw, have you guys seen pics of this chick yet? Woof. :x
Seriously, she looks like she has acromegaly, like Andre the Giant or something.
It's always the ugly ones. Beautiful people don't go blowing themselves up!
Well yeah... her mom was like "she was so lonely".... hot chicks are never lonely except by choice.
Quote from: Caliga on April 04, 2010, 07:07:13 AM
'Mum' is some idiotic Euro thing. We always say 'Mom' here. You fail at being American, Tim. :(
:mad: :mad: :mad:
Nothing wrong with "Mum"; it's your "Mom" that sounds weird...
Curse those momjahedeen!
Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2010, 07:47:28 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 04, 2010, 07:23:09 AM
btw, have you guys seen pics of this chick yet? Woof. :x
Seriously, she looks like she has acromegaly, like Andre the Giant or something.
It's always the ugly ones. Beautiful people don't go blowing themselves up!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2010%2F4%2F2%2F1270203429818%2FSuicide-bomber-Dzhennet-A-001.jpg&hash=dcd086a49d072cce7180e404218e9848ae7cae91)
The guy is cute. :ph34r:
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2010, 03:03:59 PM
The guy is cute. :ph34r:
God DAMN those Russians! :mad:
Quote from: Agelastus on April 04, 2010, 02:21:55 PM
:mad: :mad: :mad:
Nothing wrong with "Mum"; it's your "Mom" that sounds weird...
We're in charge, so we get to decide how to pronounce shit. Y'all had your time in the sun, but gave it away rather than do the right thing and give those Indians what for. :(
Quote from: Caliga on April 04, 2010, 04:34:41 PM
We're in charge, so we get to decide how to pronounce shit. Y'all had your time in the sun, but gave it away rather than do the right thing and give those Indians what for. :(
10%, cheaper tea, and a little protection for the natives...what glorious things to revolt against... :lol: :P
Quote from: Caliga on April 04, 2010, 04:34:41 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on April 04, 2010, 02:21:55 PM
:mad: :mad: :mad:
Nothing wrong with "Mum"; it's your "Mom" that sounds weird...
We're in charge, so we get to decide how to pronounce shit. Y'all had your time in the sun, but gave it away rather than do the right thing and give those Indians what for. :(
Britain couldn't have held the US anyways. Too much of the US population was devoted to slavery.
I meant 'Indian subcontinent' Indians. I would never use the racidistic term 'Indian' to refer to my Native American brothers and sisters. :mad:
Quote from: Neil on April 04, 2010, 06:31:18 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 04, 2010, 04:34:41 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on April 04, 2010, 02:21:55 PM
:mad: :mad: :mad:
Nothing wrong with "Mum"; it's your "Mom" that sounds weird...
We're in charge, so we get to decide how to pronounce shit. Y'all had your time in the sun, but gave it away rather than do the right thing and give those Indians what for. :(
Britain couldn't have held the US anyways. Too much of the US population was devoted to slavery.
And why wouldn't the Free labor North have supported the Motherland in the inevitable Civil War?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 04, 2010, 08:47:06 PM
And why wouldn't the Free labor North have supported the Motherland in the inevitable Civil War?
Because they didn't. The North fought in the Rebellion to save slavery.
Quote from: Neil on April 04, 2010, 09:17:04 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 04, 2010, 08:47:06 PM
And why wouldn't the Free labor North have supported the Motherland in the inevitable Civil War?
Because they didn't. The North fought in the Rebellion to save slavery.
Eh? What are you going on about? The Revolution had nothing to do with slavery. We're talking about a hypothetical rebellion in British North America over slavery 60-90 years later, totally different circumstances.
Britain wouldn't have repudiated slavery if it was still practiced widely in their colonies. So the point is moot. They only banned it after it became economically irrelevant. And even after that they still looked the other way when it happened.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2010, 09:32:39 PM
Britain wouldn't have repudiated slavery if it was still practiced widely in their colonies. So the point is moot. They only banned it after it became economically irrelevant. And even after that they still looked the other way when it happened.
Yeah, because that's exactly what happened in the United States. :rolleyes:
If it was still profitable in the US, why would it have been unprofitable in the British W. Indies?
I seem to recall a rather extensive Royal Navy antislavery campaign.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 04, 2010, 09:21:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 04, 2010, 09:17:04 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 04, 2010, 08:47:06 PM
And why wouldn't the Free labor North have supported the Motherland in the inevitable Civil War?
Because they didn't. The North fought in the Rebellion to save slavery.
Eh? What are you going on about? The Revolution had nothing to do with slavery. We're talking about a hypothetical rebellion in British North America over slavery 60-90 years later, totally different circumstances.
The Rebellion was all about slavery. Britain was going abolitionist and starting to pass laws ending slavery and emancipating slaves.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 04, 2010, 09:40:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2010, 09:32:39 PM
Britain wouldn't have repudiated slavery if it was still practiced widely in their colonies. So the point is moot. They only banned it after it became economically irrelevant. And even after that they still looked the other way when it happened.
Yeah, because that's exactly what happened in the United States. :rolleyes:
If it was still profitable in the US, why would it have been unprofitable in the British W. Indies?
I seem to recall a rather extensive Royal Navy antislavery campaign.
Was slavery economically relevant in the US when it was abolished? No, most slave holding areas were in open rebellion and thus not really contributing to the national economy. I didn't say slavery was unprofitable I said it became irrelevant. With the loss of most of the Americas slavery became more and more insignificant in the British economy. The power of the Slave Lobby subsequently diminished. It's a lot easier to ban something when it only effects you trivially.
Quote from: Neil on April 04, 2010, 09:49:03 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 04, 2010, 09:21:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 04, 2010, 09:17:04 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 04, 2010, 08:47:06 PM
And why wouldn't the Free labor North have supported the Motherland in the inevitable Civil War?
Because they didn't. The North fought in the Rebellion to save slavery.
Eh? What are you going on about? The Revolution had nothing to do with slavery. We're talking about a hypothetical rebellion in British North America over slavery 60-90 years later, totally different circumstances.
The Rebellion was all about slavery. Britain was going abolitionist and starting to pass laws ending slavery and emancipating slaves.
And it only took them 60 years after the Revolution to do so! I could see how this was an emergency and require swift action!
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2010, 09:54:27 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 04, 2010, 09:49:03 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 04, 2010, 09:21:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 04, 2010, 09:17:04 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 04, 2010, 08:47:06 PM
And why wouldn't the Free labor North have supported the Motherland in the inevitable Civil War?
Because they didn't. The North fought in the Rebellion to save slavery.
Eh? What are you going on about? The Revolution had nothing to do with slavery. We're talking about a hypothetical rebellion in British North America over slavery 60-90 years later, totally different circumstances.
The Rebellion was all about slavery. Britain was going abolitionist and starting to pass laws ending slavery and emancipating slaves.
And it only took them 60 years after the Revolution to do so! I could see how this was an emergency and require swift action!
They were passing emancipatory laws in the 1770s, like the Colliers and Salters Act. The Americans saw it as the thin edge of the wedge.
I doubt many Americans even knew about it. Nor was it likely on the minds of those in Boston where the Revolution started where there were few slaves and slavery was abolished shortly after the war.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2010, 10:08:06 PM
I doubt many Americans even knew about it. Nor was it likely on the minds of those in Boston where the Revolution started where there were few slaves and slavery was abolished shortly after the war.
The Rebellion was won by the money and power of the South, which is why the South dominated American politics in the early days.
Now I know you are trolling.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2010, 09:32:39 PM
Britain wouldn't have repudiated slavery if it was still practiced widely in their colonies. So the point is moot. They only banned it after it became economically irrelevant. And even after that they still looked the other way when it happened.
The sugar colonies in the Caribbean were still economically very valuable at the time of abolition (which only went through parliament when it did due to the frailties of the then government - they needed the votes of the abolitionists.) Moreover, since the Royal Navy spent most of the nineteenth century stamping out the slave trade, while the government applied diplomatic, economic and occasionally military pressure on slave trading nations to get them to stop the trade, I think you are trolling when you say "they still looked the other way".
Quote from: Agelastus on April 04, 2010, 10:51:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2010, 09:32:39 PM
Britain wouldn't have repudiated slavery if it was still practiced widely in their colonies. So the point is moot. They only banned it after it became economically irrelevant. And even after that they still looked the other way when it happened.
The sugar colonies in the Caribbean were still economically very valuable at the time of abolition (which only went through parliament when it did due to the frailties of the then government - they needed the votes of the abolitionists.) Moreover, since the Royal Navy spent most of the nineteenth century stamping out the slave trade, while the government applied diplomatic, economic and occasionally military pressure on slave trading nations to get them to stop the trade, I think you are trolling when you say "they still looked the other way".
Indeed this is why they stopped purchasing cotton from the US prior to the Civil war or why the Slavery abolition act didn't include India.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 04, 2010, 09:40:33 PM
I seem to recall a rather extensive Royal Navy antislavery campaign.
I knew grumbler could recall those days, but I though you were much younger.
:)
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2010, 11:35:44 PM
Indeed this is why they stopped purchasing cotton from the US prior to the Civil war or why the Slavery abolition act didn't include India.
It amuses me that you immediately equate diplomatic pressure with the near-to-doomsday "trade embargo" option. It also amuses me that you equate slavery 100% with the slave trade; the British concentrated on stamping out the trade so that the practise would die out naturally, and in fact banned the Trade 26 years before they abolished Slavery itself in British territories. Moreover, the USA banned the Trade itself at the same time Britain did; the USA was an anti-Slave Trade power while retaining slavery just the same as Britain, except for the fact that this situation lingered longer in the USA than it did in Britain.
The Southern States of the USA are almost unique in the history of slavery in the Americas in that the slave population did not rely on continual replacement from Africa in order to maintain its size; in fact, it actually increased even in the absence of importation. The contrast with the Sugar Islands of the Caribbean, or even most of the slave using regions of South America, is quite startling.
And the Slavery abolition Act could not include India, as the territories there were under the sovereignty of the East India Company, not the Crown. And although the Slave Trade itself was banned in 1807, the two acts in Britain and India that abolished slavery are actually only 10 years apart (1833 and 1843.) Moreover, it is quite clear that the West African trade was more well publicised in the early nineteenth century than the situation in the Indian Ocean; it was not until after Livingston's accounts of his East African travels were published that the Arab Slave trade in Eastern Africa received the same level of effort in suppression that the West Africa trade had already undergone (in relation to West Africa, 1600 slave ships had been siezed in the 52 years between 1808 and 1860.)
I remember studying this very thing fifteen years ago at university; the death rates in the Caribbean and other points south of the USA are enough to raise a sense of shame even in me, an otherwise unreformed Imperialist in many respects.
Why does Languish attract so many weirdos?
You are amused by strange things. I"m not sure what you are arguing at this point.
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2010, 03:20:00 PM
Why does Languish attract so many weirdos?
A forum initially populated by those who couldn't play nice with others on the Paradox OT board, and you're asking why the denizens are weird?
Quote from: ulmont on April 05, 2010, 03:25:30 PM
A forum initially populated by those who couldn't play nice with others on the Paradox OT board, and you're asking why the denizens are weird?
I doubt most of us would say I'm "an otherwise unreformed Imperialist in many respects."
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2010, 03:25:11 PM
You are amused by strange things. I"m not sure what you are arguing at this point.
:unsure:
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2010, 03:30:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2010, 03:25:11 PM
You are amused by strange things. I"m not sure what you are arguing at this point.
:unsure:
Also I don't like talking to Agelastus because I can't figure out if his avatar is suppose to be a guy or a girl and that distracts me a great deal.
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2010, 03:29:51 PM
Quote from: ulmont on April 05, 2010, 03:25:30 PM
A forum initially populated by those who couldn't play nice with others on the Paradox OT board, and you're asking why the denizens are weird?
I doubt most of us would say I'm "an otherwise unreformed Imperialist in many respects."
I am what I am. As full of contradictions due to my sentience as any other poster here.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2010, 04:06:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2010, 03:30:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2010, 03:25:11 PM
You are amused by strange things. I"m not sure what you are arguing at this point.
:unsure:
Also I don't like talking to Agelastus because I can't figure out if his avatar is suppose to be a guy or a girl and that distracts me a great deal.
:hug:
The character in my avatar's a girl. I don't really like the anime, or the character designs it used in general (everybody looks..."stretched" is the best way I can put it.) But the image of the girl crying in the rain, that I like, so it's my current avatar.
I will have to consider changing it though; I didn't think the character was that androgynous. :hmm:
As for what I was arguing, you seemed to be implying that Britain was not serious about suppressing the slave trade because we still bought southern cotton. I was merely pointing out that that showed a misappreciation of the distinction that was drawn at the time between slavery and the slave trade itself, and added some of the reasoning that led reformers of the time to be happy enough with suppressing the trade (as they considered the institution of slavery itself would then wither and die.) I also pointed out that the reason for the relative lack of activity against slave trading in the Indian Ocean in the first half of the nineteenth century was because the west Africa trade had been much more heavily publicised in Europe.
And that the Southern States, because it was one of the few places in the Americas that didn't kill its slaves faster than they could reproduce, was somewhat immune to these tactics.
Quote from: Agelastus on April 05, 2010, 03:17:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2010, 11:35:44 PM
Indeed this is why they stopped purchasing cotton from the US prior to the Civil war or why the Slavery abolition act didn't include India.
It amuses me that you immediately equate diplomatic pressure with the near-to-doomsday "trade embargo" option. It also amuses me that you equate slavery 100% with the slave trade; the British concentrated on stamping out the trade so that the practise would die out naturally, and in fact banned the Trade 26 years before they abolished Slavery itself in British territories. Moreover, the USA banned the Trade itself at the same time Britain did; the USA was an anti-Slave Trade power while retaining slavery just the same as Britain, except for the fact that this situation lingered longer in the USA than it did in Britain.
The Southern States of the USA are almost unique in the history of slavery in the Americas in that the slave population did not rely on continual replacement from Africa in order to maintain its size; in fact, it actually increased even in the absence of importation. The contrast with the Sugar Islands of the Caribbean, or even most of the slave using regions of South America, is quite startling.
And the Slavery abolition Act could not include India, as the territories there were under the sovereignty of the East India Company, not the Crown. And although the Slave Trade itself was banned in 1807, the two acts in Britain and India that abolished slavery are actually only 10 years apart (1833 and 1843.) Moreover, it is quite clear that the West African trade was more well publicised in the early nineteenth century than the situation in the Indian Ocean; it was not until after Livingston's accounts of his East African travels were published that the Arab Slave trade in Eastern Africa received the same level of effort in suppression that the West Africa trade had already undergone (in relation to West Africa, 1600 slave ships had been siezed in the 52 years between 1808 and 1860.)
I remember studying this very thing fifteen years ago at university; the death rates in the Caribbean and other points south of the USA are enough to raise a sense of shame even in me, an otherwise unreformed Imperialist in many respects.
Note that slavery was already starting to be banned in the 1770s.