How is it dishonorable for his stepsister to commit adultery but perfectly honorable for him to kill not only her but these three little girls? How does that make sense?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Well, it doesn't make sense. The story is horrifying and Ahmed is a dangerous and violent lunatic.
I'm sure that no one thinks this is justifiable.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
A scary amount of fundamentalist Muslims seem to...
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
This is the sort of thing that makes me wish I believed in Hell. I would get some small comfort knowing that he would be spending eternity there.
What REALLY gets me is how he killed the little girls JUST IN CASE they grew up to be maybe-adulterers like their big sister.
Pix
Posted by Black Mage (Member # 5800) on :
I think a Hell will find some way to spring up for people like that. It's got to.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
That is so horrible, I'm not even going to read the link.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
You know, I understand all about respecting other people's beliefs and all. But I'm afraid that there are some things that just do not deserve respect, and the belief in some cultures and parts of some religions that it is okay to kill women because they are perceived to have "dishonored" the men in the family is right at the top of the list. Those men who carry out "honor killings" actually have no honor at all, and it makes me sick to hear them proclaiming that they do.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Something else that makes me angry is exactly how little press stuff like this gets.
Like how little press the horrors of the Taliban got before our invasion.
It's almost like "Oh it doesn't matter. They're just killing/opressing/torturing women. What does that really matter?"
Or maybe we just instantly became numb to it since it's on the other side of the world and they're muslim and we're not so stuff like this could never happen here.
*sigh* I'm gonna get depressed if I think about this any more today...
Pix
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
The seeds of this Evil are in the Koran and they sprout again and again. Bush has done so much for Women's rights with these campaigns that I find it hard to believe any woman is a feminist who does not support him.
BC
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Way to derail the discussion, Bean.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The seeds of evil are in any ideology that justifies killing people on behalf of that ideology.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
Ahh, so this explains honor killings in Latin America? Ehhh, maybe not so much. However, the root cause is exposed when you evaluate the relative positions of women to men in cultures where honor killing is practiced.
Posted by Black Mage (Member # 5800) on :
Honor killing is not based in Islam so much as in Arab culture itself. Such a system was already in place in almost all the nomadic tribes for centuries before Islam came onto the scene. It is not Islam that is to blame; it is the fact that Islam has been used to preserve an archaic system that Middle Eastern society should have evolved past half a millenium ago at least.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: The seeds of this Evil are in the Koran and they sprout again and again. Bush has done so much for Women's rights with these campaigns that I find it hard to believe any woman is a feminist who does not support him.
BC
Which you know based on your intense study of the Koran, of course.
And we all know that the military campaigns have been all about women's rights.
And the cutting of funds for international family planning programs... Yeah, I can see how the feminists ought to get on that bandwagon.
<cough>
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Hey, give Bean a chance. He may be right, that the Koran is evil. As such we now face the next obvious question, what are we to do with the billions of people who believe in the Koran. While the more liberal of you may insist that forced conversion is the more humane solution, I am sure Bean will agree that the final solution to the Islamic question lies elsewhere.
The only true problem that remains is whether we should set up the death camps, or is nuclear annihalation of the infected countries the best insurance against the Evil Koran.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
You would kill my husband? Fie, fie on you!
Posted by ifmyheartcouldbeat (Member # 8692) on :
i wish i hadn't read that..
i sat and rewrote what i was trying to say in response to this article 1000's times..i think its easy to say now that i have no words to express what i feel about this
::shudders:: sometimes human beings make me sick
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: The only true problem that remains is whether we should set up the death camps, or is nuclear annihalation of the infected countries the best insurance against the Evil Koran.
You say this in jest, but in all seriousness, how else could we combat a fully mobilized fanatical Islamic movement?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I don't care whether the practice has roots in the Koran, or in culture, the practice does fit my definition of evil.
And regardless of your political leanings, I don't think many of us would dispute that removing the Taliban from power was a good thing, nor would we argue that women should have the right to vote and to participate in government, and not risk death every time they chose to leave their home.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:And regardless of your political leanings, I don't think many of us would dispute that removing the Taliban from power was a good thing, nor would we argue that women should have the right to vote and to participate in government, and not risk death every time they chose to leave their home.
I'd like to be able to say that removing the Taliban- or Saddam Hussein, for that matter- was unequivocally a good thing. The Taliban was an oppressive fundamentalist group with no respect for other cultures or anything that deviated from a harsh worldview largely devoid of compassion, and Hussein was a torturer and a murderer, quite possibly on a scale we have yet to fully comprehend.
But I don't think we know what's coming in to replace them yet. Whatever ills Hussein and the Taliban brought, they were (mostly) localized ills at the time they were deposed. The return of massive opium syndicates in Afghanistan, or the take-over of a fundamentalist government that ushers in a civil war in Iraq, would be nothing to cheer about.
quote:You say this in jest, but in all seriousness, how else could we combat a fully mobilized fanatical Islamic movement?
Doing so would not combat the movement. It would commit national suicide. You think we lost diplomatic ground on Iraq? Imagine what imprisoning or vaporizing close to a billion people would do.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Doing so would not combat the movement. It would commit national suicide. You think we lost diplomatic ground on Iraq? Imagine what imprisoning or vaporizing close to a billion people would do.
If a fully cohesive, radical, fundementalist, Islamic state emerged from the existing middle-eastern countries, who would we be losing diplomatic ground with? We probably wouldn't have to act at first because Europe and Asia would be the first line of battle. When the U.S. did become involved, our political capital would rise with the rest of the world.
Let me say that I'm not endorsing this plan. It would be a horrible loss of life, and a tragedy on many levels.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Let's not forget that Saudi Arabia does the same thing. But it's OK for them, because we really need their oil, and...we like them (we really like them!)
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget:
quote: Doing so would not combat the movement. It would commit national suicide. You think we lost diplomatic ground on Iraq? Imagine what imprisoning or vaporizing close to a billion people would do.
If a fully cohesive, radical, fundementalist, Islamic state emerged from the existing middle-eastern countries, who would we be losing diplomatic ground with? We probably wouldn't have to act at first because Europe and Asia would be the first line of battle. When the U.S. did become involved, our political capital would rise with the rest of the world.
Let me say that I'm not endorsing this plan. It would be a horrible loss of life, and a tragedy on many levels.
I think if such a nation existed, Europe and Asia would have insurgencies of their own to cope with the moment anyone brought hostile military actions against it.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I'm not going to let my husband read that.
People who kill their own children deserve worse than I can come up with. (Or any children, for that matter.)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Fie, fie on you!
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)