Daggers Posted 25 July 2006 Posted 25 July 2006 Don't you think that one is too many? Your coming across as if your condoning them! Allen, mate, I'm sorry but I am not going to dignify that statement with a response.
Head Honcho Posted 25 July 2006 Author Posted 25 July 2006 Allen, mate, I'm sorry but I am not going to dignify that statement with a response. Don't mean to offend but that's how your coming across. Sorry if I've offended you but as I said before it isn't something that should be swept under the carpet just because the aren't as common as I may be making out.
macbeth Posted 25 July 2006 Posted 25 July 2006 just in case anyone reading this thread is an expert on muslim tradition and well known tolerance i think it is worth repeating Thracians excellent questions.........the answers would i'm sure be enlightning and could the questions be answered as "stand-alone" rather than justified by history of what christians/ any other religions may have done centuries ago........SIMPLE YES/NO SHOULD SUFFICE a) Can a Muslim reject his/her religion and move in another direction freely? b) Can the children of Muslims or of Muslim/non Muslim parentage be brought up to follow any or no religion? c) Can a Muslim sell his house to a non Muslim? d) Are non-Muslims welcome to live in "Muslim" lands?
Daggers Posted 25 July 2006 Posted 25 July 2006 Don't mean to offend but that's how your coming across. Sorry if I've offended you but as I said before it isn't something that should be swept under the carpet just because the aren't as common as I may be making out. No, that's fine. As far as I see it, there has been one convicted case of murder for a reason associated with family shame. I haven't seen anything else online or in print to give me reason to assume that this is a widespread issue ~ and just because the police 'believe' that there may be one incident per month does not warrant me to believe it. The only similar case cited comes from a web source that has no contact details, no references to reporters ~ which means there is no way of checking the veracity of the story. Consequently, I do not see what relevance this has - and nor do I like emotive terms like execution when [if it had been a white family or a race hate crime] the word murder would have sufficed. I think 'execution' serves a neat political/media agenda and has no place in this discussion. Just my pennyworth. Obviously, no murder should be swept under the carpet - but that also means that no murder should be treated any differently from any other. All should be investigated and all perpetrators should be sent to prison. Whatever the protagonists justification for carry out such a heinous act, taking a life is simply that - and should not be elevated beyond it to support a political point of view. This is what is happening in our society today and I think it is very wrong.
Head Honcho Posted 25 July 2006 Author Posted 25 July 2006 No, that's fine. As far as I see it, there has been one convicted case of murder for a reason associated with family shame. I haven't seen anything else online or in print to give me reason to assume that this is a widespread issue ~ and just because the police 'believe' that there may be one incident per month does not warrant me to believe it. The only similar case cited comes from a web source that has no contact details, no references to reporters ~ which means there is no way of checking the veracity of the story. Consequently, I do not see what relevance this has - and nor do I like emotive terms like execution when [if it had been a white family or a race hate crime] the word murder would have sufficed. I think 'execution' serves a neat political/media agenda and has no place in this discussion. Just my pennyworth. Obviously, no murder should be swept under the carpet - but that also means that no murder should be treated any differently from any other. All should be investigated and all perpetrators should be sent to prison. Whatever the protagonists justification for carry out such a heinous act, taking a life is simply that - and should not be elevated beyond it to support a political point of view. This is what is happening in our society today and I think it is very wrong. Phew! Well at least we agree on that
macbeth Posted 25 July 2006 Posted 25 July 2006 No, that's fine. As far as I see it, there has been one convicted case of murder for a reason associated with family shame. I haven't seen anything else online or in print to give me reason to assume that this is a widespread issue ~ and just because the police 'believe' that there may be one incident per month does not warrant me to believe it. The only similar case cited comes from a web source that has no contact details, no references to reporters ~ which means there is no way of checking the veracity of the story. Consequently, I do not see what relevance this has - and nor do I like emotive terms like execution when [if it had been a white family or a race hate crime] the word murder would have sufficed. I think 'execution' serves a neat political/media agenda and has no place in this discussion. Just my pennyworth. Obviously, no murder should be swept under the carpet - but that also means that no murder should be treated any differently from any other. All should be investigated and all perpetrators should be sent to prison. Whatever the protagonists justification for carry out such a heinous act, taking a life is simply that - and should not be elevated beyond it to support a political point of view. This is what is happening in our society today and I think it is very wrong. on the last point about no murder should be treated differently to another i totally agree ; but we have a law that states racially aggravated murder carries a heavier penalty......... i think this is a ridiculous law inasmuch that; if a black man is murdered by thugs because he is wearing a notts forest shirt that could be just murder; but if he is murdered while wearing a nigeria shirt that could be construed as racial i believe all "unprovoked" murders should be treated equally and have no need to prove racially aggravated or otherwise do you think this honour killing could be construed as racially aggravated even though both parties are the same race; ie it may not have happened if she had not been islamic
Head Honcho Posted 25 July 2006 Author Posted 25 July 2006 on the last point about no murder should be treated differently to another i totally agree ; but we have a law that states racially aggravated murder carries a heavier penalty......... i think this is a ridiculous law inasmuch that; if a black man is murdered by thugs because he is wearing a notts forest shirt that could be just murder; but if he is murdered while wearing a nigeria shirt that could be construed as racial i believe all "unprovoked" murders should be treated equally and have no need to prove racially aggravated or otherwise do you think this honour killing could be construed as racially aggravated even though both parties are the same race; ie it may not have happened if she had not been islamic Good point! So even in law all murders are not treated the same! I wonder if more resources are thrown at racist murders as they carry a greater tariff if a conviction is achieved
Daggers Posted 25 July 2006 Posted 25 July 2006 on the last point about no murder should be treated differently to another i totally agree ; but we have a law that states racially aggravated murder carries a heavier penalty......... i think this is a ridiculous law<snip> i believe all "unprovoked" murders should be treated equally and have no need to prove racially aggravated or otherwise The legal positioning to create a case for murder that is worse due to a racial aspect to the incident is a non sequitur in the absurdest sense. To my mind we had enough striations in law already to cover everything from first degree to accidental death ~ compounding it with this fop to community leaders in order to placate tensions in affected areas is non-nonsensical. That is, unless you believe it works ~ which I don't. The proof of the pudding is how many times the CPS has used this law to attempt a conviction and I can find no statistics to shed any light on it. I feel it is probably few as the burden on evidence would be greater. There can be no doubting that racially motivated deaths continue to happen though, but I feel the solution is to deal with the crime and educate the community. It requires time and investment that a government bent on extending a Middle East war will never support other than through lip service. The IRR believes that in the current political climate of anti-asylum-seeker and anti-Muslim demonisation, there is a mood of public acceptability of the high levels of violent racist crime on Britain's streets. While some cases, such as that of Anthony Walker, rightly attract widespread media coverage and are clearly identified as racist thuggery by the police and courts, in many other cases the racial element is ignored or downplayed, particularly where the victims are foreign nationals and/or Muslim.There have, in fact, been an average of five racist murders a year since 1993. The IRR has on file sixty-eight cases that it considers to be racially motivated killings over the last thirteen years. The victims of such attacks are often the most vulnerable in our society - the young, the elderly, asylum seekers and migrant workers. At least eleven asylum seekers or migrant workers have been killed in racially motivated attacks since 1993. Furthermore, in the climate of anti-Muslim racism that has followed September 11, and especially after 7 July 2005, many of the victims of racially motivated attacks have been Muslims. Eight Muslim men have been murdered in racially motivated attacks since September 2001: Shah Wahab, Mohammed Isa Hasan Ali, Awais Alam, Quadir Ahmed, Shahid Aziz, Akerball Tayabali Mohamedally, Kalan Kawa Karim and Kamal Raza Butt. The recent murder of a Pakistani man, Kamal Raza Butt, by a gang of youths in Nottingham, who taunted him with the word 'Taliban' during the attack, just days after the 7 July bombings in London, was not counted as racially or religiously motivated by the investigating police. ***I apologise for digressing at his point from the main thread*** A clear summary of UK crime and violence can be found here, which I found interesting. It's very short and has big pictures - which always appeals to me, being simple.
Thracian Posted 25 July 2006 Posted 25 July 2006 No, that's fine. As far as I see it, there has been one convicted case of murder for a reason associated with family shame. I haven't seen anything else online or in print to give me reason to assume that this is a widespread issue ~ and just because the police 'believe' that there may be one incident per month does not warrant me to believe it. The only similar case cited comes from a web source that has no contact details, no references to reporters ~ which means there is no way of checking the veracity of the story. Consequently, I do not see what relevance this has - and nor do I like emotive terms like execution when [if it had been a white family or a race hate crime] the word murder would have sufficed. I think 'execution' serves a neat political/media agenda and has no place in this discussion. Just my pennyworth. Obviously, no murder should be swept under the carpet - but that also means that no murder should be treated any differently from any other. All should be investigated and all perpetrators should be sent to prison. Whatever the protagonists justification for carry out such a heinous act, taking a life is simply that - and should not be elevated beyond it to support a political point of view. This is what is happening in our society today and I think it is very wrong. I'm not sure about the word "execution" being especially emotive and certainly not in relation to colour. There's been reference enough to "gangland executions" and "Mafia style executions" for years in the media. The term simply suggests an action or "sentence" being carried out because the victim has offended some written or unwritten law.
Daggers Posted 25 July 2006 Posted 25 July 2006 I'm not sure about the word "execution" being especially emotive and certainly not in relation to colour. There's been reference enough to "gangland executions" and "Mafia style executions" for years in the media. The term simply suggests an action or "sentence" being carried out because the victim has offended some written or unwritten law. Exactly, the term is used in the case of drug gangs, mafiosi hits and gangland retribution in order to well up a sense of occasion, to play on the emotive response of the reader. The prosecuting counsel said "Following a heated argument about her relationship with Salman, she was attacked and killed." That (to me) simply says murder ~ maybe it is just me but I definitely see shades of grey on this matter.
Head Honcho Posted 25 July 2006 Author Posted 25 July 2006 Exactly, the term is used in the case of drug gangs, mafiosi hits and gangland retribution in order to well up a sense of occasion, to play on the emotive response of the reader. The prosecuting counsel said "Following a heated argument about her relationship with Salman, she was attacked and killed." That (to me) simply says murder ~ maybe it is just me but I definitely see shades of grey on this matter. Most honour killings in the middle east are generally said to be executions normally carried out by one relative on the orders of another. Death of a Princess is a good example.
Daggers Posted 25 July 2006 Posted 25 July 2006 Let's move on to discuss the terms 'BARBARIC' and 'SICKENING' Kathy Gannon, The Associated Press Tuesday 25 July 2006 Israel Drops White Phosphorus Bombs, Littlest Victims Suffer Jawad Najem, a surgeon at the hospital, said patients admitted Sunday had burns from phosphorous incendiary weapons used by Israel. The Geneva Conventions ban using white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations and in air attacks against military forces in civilian areas. source
Daggers Posted 25 July 2006 Posted 25 July 2006 They just go from strength to strength in this ... Four United Nations peacekeepers have been killed in an Israeli air strike on an observation post in southern Lebanon, the UN has said.
macbeth Posted 26 July 2006 Posted 26 July 2006 the goalposts keep being moved on this thread.........any criticism of islam is countered by another reference to an atrocity by israel........but i suppose that is what the thread is all about;
Ultra Posted 26 July 2006 Posted 26 July 2006 They just go from strength to strength in this ... But their apologists will continue to defend them, even if they launched a thermonuclear strike on Tehran. Indeed the only reason why they haven't quite done that yet is the existence of a small but VERY significant Jewish community in that city.
macbeth Posted 26 July 2006 Posted 26 July 2006 But their apologists will continue to defend them, even if they launched a thermonuclear strike on Tehran. Indeed the only reason why they haven't quite done that yet is the existence of a small but VERY significant Jewish community in that city. i don't think anyone speaking up for israel ; who has been forced to take action against a well armed terrorist group can be called an apologist anymore than those seeking to justify the actions of terrorists themselves.....we all accept that war is wrong and the deaths of innocents is wrong but why keep trying to take the moral high ground for one side only we haven't experienced the incidious long term terror inflicted on the citizens of israel and i think it is hard to imagine how we would react to the years of instability in an area where all sides seem intransigent
Daggers Posted 26 July 2006 Posted 26 July 2006 the goalposts keep being moved on this thread.........any criticism of islam is countered by another reference to an atrocity by israel........but i suppose that is what the thread is all about; I am not going to defend any religion. The world would be a nicer place without them.
macbeth Posted 26 July 2006 Posted 26 July 2006 I am not going to defend any religion. The world would be a nicer place without them. amen
Daggers Posted 26 July 2006 Posted 26 July 2006 we haven't experienced the incidious long term terror inflicted on the citizens of israel and i think it is hard to imagine how we would react to the years of instability in an area where all sides seem intransigent Our recent history has seen terrorists burning Welsh homes, striking against animal experimenters and exploding bombs across the country. If any nation is placed in a position that enables it to empathise with a country subjected to ongoing terrorist threat then it is ours ~ but all we are doing is supporting Israel rather than looking to effect change in the region on an immediate and long term scale, of benefit to the whole region. Moreover, if you count the considerable financial aid that the IRA received from the United States, we should also be able to empathise with nations that the US sides against - but we [as a Nation] don't. I fully accept that the scale of attacks on Israel is disgustingly high and unsupportable, I fully accept that the atrocities carried out by Israel are disgusting. My rage is reserved for the countries and politicians that should be bending over backwards to solve this conflict rather than fanning it - mainly Bush and Blair, the US and us. There is no high ground to be had here, everyone involved is losing...especially the innocent civilian men, women and children on both sides.
Daggers Posted 26 July 2006 Posted 26 July 2006 A rather moving collection of statistics can be found at the following three sites, for anyone interested enough to read them. I find the numbers quite horrific, and one phrase was really telling: This conflict has caused over 2,200 deaths so far; and yet, its most significant aspect seems to be the struggle for international public opinion rather than any effort at gaining a conventional military victory.(In relation to the period 2000~2002) Link One Link Two Link Three
Dr The Singh Posted 26 July 2006 Posted 26 July 2006 I am not going to defend any religion. The world would be a nicer place without them. Nah, Instead there would be rule books written by dictators, wars would be over land and poer in the name of a dictator, race, kin or kind or any other excuse to find. Mankind has a ability to self destruct itself.........and it's will to use all means for power (being power hungry) will and always exist!!!
macbeth Posted 26 July 2006 Posted 26 July 2006 Nah, Instead there would be rule books written by dictators, wars would be over land and poer in the name of a dictator, race, kin or kind or any other excuse to find. Mankind has a ability to self destruct itself.........and it's will to use all means for power (being power hungry) will and always exist!!! yes but these dictators would have to justify it using reason.....not some " because it is written " cop out
Dr The Singh Posted 26 July 2006 Posted 26 July 2006 yes but these dictators would have to justify it using reason.....not some " because it is written " cop out I'm sure i was a dictator I could find some excuse to enslave the world..or maybe because I was a dictator I need no excuse, anyhow...I quite fancy being a dictator!!!!
macbeth Posted 26 July 2006 Posted 26 July 2006 I'm sure i was a dictator I could find some excuse to enslave the world..or maybe because I was a dictator I need no excuse, anyhow...I quite fancy being a dictator!!!! and all dictators evetually fall like bad democracies........ religious dogma lives on enslaving minds
Daggers Posted 26 July 2006 Posted 26 July 2006 Nah, Instead there would be rule books written by dictators, wars would be over land and poer in the name of a dictator, race, kin or kind or any other excuse to find. Mankind has a ability to self destruct itself.........and it's will to use all means for power (being power hungry) will and always exist!!! The sports team from my region is superior to the sports team from your region therefore I shall smite you and you kin! Maybe, but the history of war is intrinsically linked to conflicts between supporters of differing belief systems. I never cease to find it odd that religions seem bent on finding the quickest possible [one] way to prove whether they are right or not. :pinch: Personally, I feel that if everyone adopted a humanist perspective then wars would be a thing of the past ~ and if they don't, I'll do 'em!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.