Man Beheads Wife in 'Honor' Killing

I'm of the opinion that this case is reflective of the violence against women in the US.

With a religious basis from outside the US. How long had they lived there? Your case appears to be argued on a convenience of geography.

Muslims, quite clearly. You, personally seem to be stoking an abiding hatred of all people and things theistic.

In the meantime, S.A.M. actually has a viable point. While some are quick to be horrified by people wrapped so wrapped up in religion as to be neurotic or even psychotic, it seems—in the U.S., at least—that, faced with mass murder in pursuit of petroleum resources and other economic rewards, we are supposed to just shrug, maybe mutter, "That's a shame, but we gotta do what we gotta do," and carry on with our daily lives.

Partially true - but exploiting other nations is universal, and does not detract from the issue of human rights. How you treat your own people is a mark of the most basic element of sociality.

As for it being directed against muslims specifically: no. Islam is a philosophy, the same as any other. Can criticism of communism be decried (or even worse, prohibited) on the basis that it demeans communists? No.
 
I'm of the opinion that this case is reflective of the violence against women in the US.
women are shit on in every culture on the planet sam, you know that.
only in industrialized societies do they enjoy a measure of equality.

even the christian bible mentions that all women would suffer because of eves "weakness". some justice eh?
 
Leopold is quite correct here. Most religions have a dim view of women. The problems are a) the extent of such a view, and b) the pass-fail point of those views making it into law or society at large.
 
Welll now, before the Roman's invaded Britain Women were often leaders. Germanic women often when to war with their husbands - egging them on even, spitting on the cowards. Before China's influence Japan was lead by a woman.

It seems to be that before civilization people are more "free" especially women.
 
Apparently the best way to civilize Muslims, or any other people, is to kill their women and children en masse (ie Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir, etc.). The native Americans know this far too well. The Western strategy for dominance never changed, it is now only more discreet.

It's rather hilarious to hear a bunch of white Westerners preach for the rights of Muslims or other people, because they believe we don't know what is good for ourselves.

All I have to say is, its no us of trying to wipe out our way of life and our identity. You did it to our African brothers who you brought in chains to your country, but we have learned from that and we will never let it happen again.

Long live the resistance to Western domination throughout the world. Truth will be victorious. We will break our chains and rise again!
 
Apparently the best way to civilize Muslims, or any other people, is to kill their women and children en masse (ie Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir, etc.). The native Americans know this far too well. The Western strategy for dominance never changed, it is now only more discreet.

It's rather hilarious to hear a bunch of white Westerners preach for the rights of Muslims or other people, because they believe we don't know what is good for ourselves.

All I have to say is, its no us of trying to wipe out our way of life and our identity. You did it to our African brothers who you brought in chains to your country, but we have learned from that and we will never let it happen again.

Long live the resistance to Western domination throughout the world. Truth will be victorious. We will break our chains and rise again!
Oh that is Gold DH. Pure GOLD!

Quoted for prosperity.

I don't know about anyone else, but I am standing up and applauding! It's like watching a bad version of the Sam's speech in "Lord of the Rings".. Or worse, Mel Gibson in "Braveheart"..

“They may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedoooooooom.”


All that's missing is a kilt and face painted blue or a Hobbit and Smeagle saying "my precious.. my preeeecciioouuussss"..

Bravo DH for the lamest speech given on this forum in a long, long time!
 
Meanwhile, as someone with African ancestry, I shudder that DH could think of us as being somehow related.

:bawl:

Save me Jeebus!
 
Apparently the best way to civilize Muslims, or any other people, is to kill their women and children en masse (ie Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir, etc.). The native Americans know this far too well. The Western strategy for dominance never changed, it is now only more discreet.

It's rather hilarious to hear a bunch of white Westerners preach for the rights of Muslims or other people, because they believe we don't know what is good for ourselves.

It's rather hilarious to hear someone speak for 'white' Westerners, as if they are all one and the same and as if 'you' know what 'we' think. Apparently, according to DiamondHearts, because I am a 'white' Westerner, I must not have an individual opinion or culture or religion...I guess I'm just a what...'white' Westerner who oppresses Muslims :rolleyes:.

All I have to say is, its no us of trying to wipe out our way of life and our identity. You did it to our African brothers who you brought in chains to your country, but we have learned from that and we will never let it happen again.

Long live the resistance to Western domination throughout the world. Truth will be victorious. We will break our chains and rise again!

Oh PLEASE! Grow up, get educated, and get over yourself. Don't accuse others of racism when you so blatantly practice it yourself. Shall I requote my response to your previous post which you chose to ignore? Yes, I think I shall, only because I hope, at some point, you will realize that YOU are not the only victim and that not only YOUR people have been victimized throughout the history of slavery and oppression.

The worse part of the portrayal of Muslim women in popular Western culture is that they are always defined by Non-Muslim men, thus I find it laughable when they say that Muslim men control Muslim women. It is definitely NOT like that in my country, LOL. Maybe the other way around. Muslim women aren't allowed to portray themselves, according to this view, as they don't know what is best for them.

This statement confuses me. What do you mean when you say that "Muslim women aren't allowed to portray themselves, according to this view, as they don't know what is best for them"? Are you saying that Muslim women are not allowed to portray themselves as being controlled by Muslim men or are you saying that Muslim women are not allowed to portray themselves as being independent from them, or neither? I am not following your train of thought here. Clarity would be helpful. I'm just not sure how you are trying to define Muslim women.


This, along with the deflection of the blame of slavery from the West (the largest criminals in this regard in history) to other civilizations (Islamic Arab or African, Non-Muslim African, Native American, etc.) is evidence of the corrupted psychological mindset of white Westerners.

This is not only a stereotypical and racist statement, but an ignorant one as well. Granted Western civilization has been the scapegoat for slavery, but slavery has been practiced for thousands of years by all civilizations, races, and cultures, and to place the blame solely on 'white' Westerners is pure hypocrisy and also uneducated. I am Caucasian. My Irish ancestors traveled to America to escape the famine and were treated like dogs...like rabid animals...unworthy of work and human compassion. Do you think my people were spared humiliation, discrimination, and racism because their skin was white? No. To say that all 'white' Westerners participated in Western slavery is pure idiocy. Do you think only 'colored' people have been the victims of slavery and persecution? Why is it politically correct to assume all 'white' people are the same, as if they don't have their own history, background, and culture? Apparently this attitude is called reverse racism, but I think it is just racism period. There is a huge difference in culture between, say, the Romanian, the Irish, and the Norwegian, but yet all are considered Caucasian, grouped into one category, and blamed for the enslavement of 'colored' people because they are 'white'.

You may not notice, but we see right through you. We aren't unaware of your motives.

By simply using the word 'you', you, DiamondHearts, are generalizing and grouping all Caucasians into one group, as if they are one and the same. What if I used the phrase 'all you colored people...'? I would be bashed as a racist. Not all 'colored' people are the same in culture and religion and the same goes for all 'white' people.
 
Whether this man's actions stem from a deep-seeded primal instinct, as you say, to dominate the female and assert ownership, as humans, throughout many different cultures and countries, we have created laws to which we adhere to in order to maintain civility and peace. Primal instinct or not, religion or not, if we are to follow the laws that are dictated by our countries, then what this man did was unlawful. It is not brainless stupidity to assert this opinion.
It is brainless stupidity to think it has anything to do with religion and it is careless and knee jerk reading to think I was making amy comment on the legality of the issue.
 
Leopold is quite correct here. Most religions have a dim view of women. The problems are a) the extent of such a view, and b) the pass-fail point of those views making it into law or society at large.

Which religion permits fileting and cooking women then eating them? Three cases of barbeque in a year seem ominous.
 
Originally Posted by GeoffP
Leopold is quite correct here. Most religions have a dim view of women. The problems are a) the extent of such a view, and b) the pass-fail point of those views making it into law or society at large.

Which religion permits fileting and cooking women then eating them? Three cases of barbeque in a year seem ominous.

They did so with no help from christian doctrine and it was clearly illegal. 3 in about 300 million isn't so many. Now for a look at something that some claim is islamic doctrine:
Question on Death ( Mawt )
Answered by Dr.htm Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips

Q. Is there any evidence in the Quran or Sunnah which supports the chopping of heads on Friday?

A. We were instructed to carry out the cutting of hands or heads, stoning people to death, lashing, etc. in public and the greatest gathering of Muslims, excluding the two Eids and Hajj, is on Fridays. It was the practice of the Prophet (pbuh) to gather as many people from the community to witness the implementation of the Islamic law. Executing the individual was not just punishment for that individual, but it was also awareness to the people what will happen if they committed the same crime.​

Personally, I like it here in Canada, where the death sentence was abolished. Gotta love how he casually flips off the 'etc.'. Par for the course it seems.


There's more...
Taliban publicly execute woman - AP, November 17, 1999:
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - Thousands of people watched as a woman, cowering beneath a pale blue all-enveloping burqa, was shot and killed today in the first public execution of a woman in Kabul since the Taliban religious army took control three years ago.​

From Iran Press Service - May 2002:
Meanwhile, some notorious inmates have been hanged in prison rather than in public, apparently to avoid possible clashes between reformers and conservatives...

But serious dissent surrounding hangings is not heard. Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khameneh'i, who wields complete power, has said anyone opposing executions should face the same punishment.
 
Note that those who oppose executions are still bombing civilians. The idea is similar to refusing to eat fish if it is served with the head attached. The idea is not so much about compassion for the dead animal but a kind of desire to create a cognitive dissonance between being the instrument of death while still feeling justified in partaking of the advantages of doing so.
 
Note that those who oppose executions are still bombing civilians

Whose the they in your 'that's what they say'? -I- don't support bombing civilians. I do agree, however, that NATO has been fairly embarassing in this regard recently. Last I heard, Canada wanted to pull out of Afghanistan in 2011; I haven't heard of a change of plans so far.
 
Note that those who oppose executions are still bombing civilians. The idea is similar to refusing to eat fish if it is served with the head attached. The idea is not so much about compassion for the dead animal but a kind of desire to create a cognitive dissonance between being the instrument of death while still feeling justified in partaking of the advantages of doing so.

Personally I think the act of not wanting to see the head does in fact relate to our feelings about killing things. Nevertheless, in the case of the fish atleast, I certainly wouldn't say that a fisherman is more guilty of killing the creature then the man who eats it.

Ofcourse, I know of almost no one who eats people that are killed from bombings. As I mentioned previously, however, I do agree that many aerial bombings have -not- helped the coalitions out in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
 
Which religion permits fileting and cooking women then eating them? Three cases of barbeque in a year seem ominous.

Er...a religion permits that? I'd be interested to see which one you're accusing, and why.

Apparently the best way to civilize Muslims, or any other people, is to kill their women and children en masse (ie Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir, etc.).

And the best way to protect women is to behead them.

Protecting them from themselves? :shrug:
 
Ofcourse, I know of almost no one who eats people that are killed from bombings. .
Its an analogy. The benefits are equally accrued to those who embrace the cognitive dissonance of collateral damages when its far away distant children being killed, justifying showers of white phosphorus that burn them to the bone.

These are people with young children who claim to stand for human rights. Perhaps they simply have a different definition of what constitutes "human"
 
Now, now. I asked first. Moreover, the kind of changes you're talking about here don't sum to the 90% of women assaulted in Pakistan. I suppose you could blame it on the old "hinterlands tribal thing".
 
Back
Top