Honor Killings

[Gunny]

Anyone want to defend the ragheads on THIS one?

[glockmail]

No.

[Jeff]

I don't see any defense for it, unless they Honorable kill each other until there isn't any more, now that I am good with, But this one a time shit is for the birds. :laugh:

[Gunny]

I don't see any defense for it, unless they Honorable kill each other until there isn't any more, now that I am good with, But this one a time shit is for the birds. :laugh:

Yeah, but don't a Christian. Or white. But murder my muslim is called "honor killings". Last I checked there's no honor in murdering women and children.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Give fj some time and some leeway to figure a way to indirectly defend them..

FJ IS SURELY ITCHING TO DO JUST THAT AS HIS POSTING HISTORY HERE CLEARLY REVEALS. -TYR

[jimnyc]

Well, it's right there in the title, "honor" killing - so how can it not be honorable? :dunno:

Someone needs to start some honor nukes. :)

[Gunny]

Give fj some time and some leeway to figure a way to indirectly defend them..

FJ IS SURELY ITCHING TO DO JUST THAT AS HIS POSTING HISTORY HERE CLEARLY REVEALS. -TYR

I seriously doubt he's going to defend Sharia Law. And don't forget, Arab tribalism is as much of the problem as anything else. They'll shoot you for walking on THEIR sand dune. You're in charge, or you're a lackey. There's ZERO middle class.

But when you want to come to the US to be "free", then damned well be free and don't bring your baggage with you. WHAT do you think your escaping by bringing the very damned thing you're claiming you are trying to escape with your dumb ass? Everyone claims to want to be American, but they bring their stupid rules with them.

You don't get to just murder people because they're not following your dumbass bastardization of 7th century rules.

When you come to America to be American, that means you come to be American, not bring a bunch of stupid crap with you.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I seriously doubt he's going to defend Sharia Law. And don't forget, Arab tribalism is as much of the problem as anything else. They'll shoot you for walking on THEIR sand dune. You're in charge, or you're a lackey. There's ZERO middle class.

But when you want to come to the US to be "free", then damned well be free and don't bring your baggage with you. WHAY do you think your escaping by bringing the very damned thing you're claiming yo be trying to escape with your dumb ass? Everyone claims to want to be American, but they bring their stupid rules with them.

You don't get to just murder people because they're not following your dumbass bastardization of 7th century rules.

When you come to America to be American, that means you come to be American, not bring a bunch of stupid crap with you.


I seriously doubt he's going to defend Sharia Law.
Not directly. But indirectly he has many,many times just as he defended Jafar for years.
When it come to muzzys I dont miss much my friend. As they are my sworn enemies.
Know your enemy is one rule I adhere to always..
The other is never underestimate said enemies, as often thats a fatal mistake..-Tyr

[Gunny]

Not directly. But indirectly he has many,many times just as he defended Jafar for years.
When it come to muzzys I dont miss much my friend. As they are my sworn enemies.
Know your enemy is one rule I adhere to always..
The other is never underestimate said enemies, as often thats a fatal mistake..-Tyr

Doesn't matter to me. Y'all snipe and I sniped back. I hate to point this out because I really don't mean to offend, but you're playing HIS game. That offends the military in me.

FJ is good on some topics. I don't always agree with him. Don't always agree with you either. And I'm sure there's no one here that doesn't think I'm a whack job at times. Hell, you should be ME. I KNOW I'm a whack job. :laugh2:

You my friend, spend too much time hating and not thinking. Have to understand the enemy to defeat him. I don't like Islam. But I understand it VERY well so I know where my target's going and what he's going to do. People are creatures of habit and longevity is not your next best word around me. Muslims like to face toward Mecca about 4 times a day. They make good targets.

No different with you and FJ. Know your enemy and his game. Know his strengths and weaknesses. He can get under y'all's skin in a second. Because you let him.

[fj1200]

Give fj some time...

If you're going to troll, do it right. There's an app for that. :slap: Nevertheless this is only proof of your overactive imagination. :)

[gabosaurus]

Anyone want to defend the ragheads on THIS one?

Also practiced extensively by Hindus, many African nations and in several South American nations. Not to mention all the American men who have bumped off suitors of cheating spouses and kids they have caught messing with their daughters. :cool:

[Drummond]

If you're going to troll, do it right. There's an app for that. :slap:

So speaks the expert.

Some of the strongest condemnatory posting I ever had from you came out of a discussion having to do with terrorists' so-called 'human rights'. When I pointed out that there was just no way of even regarding them as human, and I pressed the point, you mounted a strong defence of the scum, calling my very attitude 'disgusting'.

To my certain knowledge, you've never posted as lengthily, nor with as much effort, on the counterbalancing matter of what those terrorists's VICTIMS have endured from these 'human beings' ... you've been more inclined to find ways of defending TERRORIST so-called 'human rights'.

Honour killings involve, amongst other manifestations of it, family members killing other family members on grounds of 'honour having been violated'. I invite you, FJ, to show me that this is recognisable 'human' conduct.

Even animals have the instinct to PROTECT and DEFEND their young. What about Muslims, and their excuses to 'honour-kill' .. ?

[fj1200]

...calling my very attitude 'disgusting'.

I believe I said your "torture as revenge" position was disgusting and it is. Nevertheless some humans suck; that's never been in doubt.

[namvet]

Yeah, but don't a Christian. Or white. But murder my muslim is called "honor killings". Last I checked there's no honor in murdering women and children.

or fuckin' em either

[namvet]

and they happen right here in the US

honor killings in America

link (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/honor-killings-in-america/391760/)

[Gunny]

Also practiced extensively by Hindus, many African nations and in several South American nations. Not to mention all the American men who have bumped off suitors of cheating spouses and kids they have caught messing with their daughters. :cool:

Ain't we the bright one? I was referring to the ones they do HERE. If you're waiting on ME to say Sharia Law is okay, I wouldn't be holding my breath. If you're likewise waiting on me to tell others how yo live, don't hold your breath.

Keep it out of MY f*cking country. And that goes for BOTH sides. Anyone letting them in is as guilty of the crimes as they are.

[Drummond]

I believe I said your "torture as revenge" position was disgusting and it is. Nevertheless some humans suck; that's never been in doubt.

What you picked me up on, and at length, was my 'proposition' (.. actually, I assert it to be PROVEN FACT) that Muslim terrorists, to do what they do, and even to exult in it, cannot be human AT ALL. This, combined with the obvious conclusion that as non-humans, they cannot possibly merit 'human rights' and are deserving of extermination, was a position you found 'disgusting'.

But I note your wording in saying 'some humans suck'. Evidently you've no interest in revising your wholly liberal position to finally admit that you're wrong to take the line that you do.

So, tell me. The Paris atrocities, of just hours ago, as I type ... if any of the terrorists responsible were alive now, and were captured, what would be your concern that their 'human rights' receive sacrosanct consideration ??

Or do you finally admit that to grant them any such 'rights' is a nonsense ?

If you don't admit to this, then tell me how many more deaths and mutilations of innocent, decent people, it'll take for you to finally change your mind !!

And here's something for you to chew over. If reports are correct, then all the terrorists involved blew themselves up. So, if THEY had no interest in THEIR 'human rights' existing (since if they're DEAD, it's impossible to apply any !) what is it that motivates YOU to think that they could've ever deserved any, had they lived ??

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What you picked me up on, and at length, was my 'proposition' (.. actually, I assert it to be PROVEN FACT) that Muslim terrorists, to do what they do, and even to exult in it, cannot be human AT ALL. This, combined with the obvious conclusion that as non-humans, they cannot possibly merit 'human rights' and are deserving of extermination, was a position you found 'disgusting'.

But I note your wording in saying 'some humans suck'. Evidently you've no interest in revising your wholly liberal position to finally admit that you're wrong to take the line that you do.

So, tell me. The Paris atrocities, of just hours ago, as I type ... if any of the terrorists responsible were alive now, and were captured, what would be your concern that their 'human rights' receive sacrosanct consideration ??

Or do you finally admit that to grant them any such 'rights' is a nonsense ?

And here's something for you to chew over. If reports are correct, then all the terrorists involved blew themselves up. So, if THEY had no interest in THEIR 'human rights' existing (since if they're DEAD, it's impossible to apply any !) what is it that motivates YOU to think that they could've ever deserved any, had they lived ??

DO YOU EXPECT RATIONAL AND /OR HONEST DEBATE FOR THAT SHILL ?
Remember both he and tailfins were big backers of Jafar , before that muslim coward when finally fully exposed -ran away!-Tyr

[Drummond]

DO YOU EXPECT RATIONAL AND /OR HONEST DEBATE FOR THAT SHILL ?

Of course not. He has an agenda to obey. An agenda he'll never admit to, though he follows it, slavishly.


Remember both he and tailfins were big backers of Jafar , before that muslim coward when finally fully exposed -ran away!-Tyr:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Indeed - well said !

[Gunny]

What you picked me up on, and at length, was my 'proposition' (.. actually, I assert it to be PROVEN FACT) that Muslim terrorists, to do what they do, and even to exult in it, cannot be human AT ALL. This, combined with the obvious conclusion that as non-humans, they cannot possibly merit 'human rights' and are deserving of extermination, was a position you found 'disgusting'.

But I note your wording in saying 'some humans suck'. Evidently you've no interest in revising your wholly liberal position to finally admit that you're wrong to take the line that you do.

So, tell me. The Paris atrocities, of just hours ago, as I type ... if any of the terrorists responsible were alive now, and were captured, what would be your concern that their 'human rights' receive sacrosanct consideration ??

Or do you finally admit that to grant them any such 'rights' is a nonsense ?

If you don't admit to this, then tell me how many more deaths and mutilations of innocent, decent people, it'll take for you to finally change your mind !!

And here's something for you to chew over. If reports are correct, then all the terrorists involved blew themselves up. So, if THEY had no interest in THEIR 'human rights' existing (since if they're DEAD, it's impossible to apply any !) what is it that motivates YOU to think that they could've ever deserved any, had they lived ??

Hold your breath on THAT. That would be one MF-er than didn't quite make it to jail. And if I could say what I'd like to, you would know I'm NOT kidding.

[fj1200]

:blah:

You haven't said anything new. Some humans suck; it doesn't make them good people but they still suck. I only point out that you attempt to use your position to advance the powers of the state over the individual.


:blah:

I own you otherwise you would't have to lie like a sack and run away from discussing issues. :)

[fj1200]

... an agenda to obey.

It's sweet how you to run to each other when you can't bowl over other people's viewpoints.

[Voted4Reagan]

Of course not. He has an agenda to obey. An agenda he'll never admit to, though he follows it, slavishly.

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Indeed - well said !

Once I nailed him on that Fake Photograph of the Clocktower and Palestinians being "PUSHED INTO THE SEA" he really lost all credibility with me...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?41132-Palestinian-Mass-Grave-uncovered-in-Tel-Aviv

[Drummond]

You haven't said anything new. Some humans suck; it doesn't make them good people but they still suck. I only point out that you attempt to use your position to advance the powers of the state over the individual.

I know I haven't said anything new. What's unfortunate is that YOU haven't, either ... you're STILL equating Muslim terrorists with the word 'human'. I will agree that Muslim terrorists aren't good people, but a reason for this being true is that they don't qualify as humans AT ALL.

This is a point that you've always refused to concede.

What's the point of your sentence (as bolded) .. ? Are you saying that Muslim terrorists should be FREE of control by any State-created authority ??

What are you therefore arguing for, here, given your insistence that terrorists are human beings ? Freedom from detention at places like Gitmo ?? Freedom even from arrest ???!?

Or, are there times (as Margaret Thatcher would've told you) when the State has a worthwhile and highly necessary role to satisfy ?

[fj1200]

I know I haven't said anything new. What's unfortunate is that YOU haven't, either ... you're STILL equating Muslim terrorists with the word 'human'. I will agree that Muslim terrorists aren't good people, but a reason for this being true is that they don't qualify as humans AT ALL.

This is a point that you've always refused to concede.

What's the point of your sentence (as bolded) .. ? Are you saying that Muslim terrorists should be FREE of control by any State-created authority ??

What are you therefore arguing for, here, given your insistence that terrorists are human beings ? Freedom from detention at places like Gitmo ?? Freedom even from arrest ???!?

Or, are there times (as Margaret Thatcher would've told you) when the State has a worthwhile and highly necessary role to satisfy ?

Why would I add anything when all I've posted is TRUTH. Terrorists suck. Terrorists are human. That they are human doesn't mean that they are good people. But you're not even willing to apply your own definition; the Nazis were terrorists but you won't call them subhuman; the Japanese Imperial Army were terrorists but you won't call them subhuman; Nelson Mandela was a terrorist and you won't call him subhuman. TRUTH doesn't get conceded.

The point of my other statement is proving that you're a big government hack. Also, thank you for more proof that you ask stupid questions with stupid underlying premises; even disgusting humans are free to be killed and arrested if necessary in response to their actions. Should I point out that Mags opposed torture and that your "Proudly Thatcherite" tag is false?

[Drummond]

Why would I add anything when all I've posted is TRUTH. Terrorists suck. Terrorists are human. That they are human doesn't mean that they are good people.

... and there it is .. an absolute refusal to recognise that terrorists are less than human, therefore, NOT deserving of 'human rights'.

This was pivotal to our other, older argument. You insisted that terrorists had a right to those 'rights'. Conceding that they weren't human would've defeated your stance on that, so, you never did so.

You STILL won't.

Tell us all, please, how many people will have to die, or be injured or mutilated, before you give this stance up !!!

OR IS THERE NO UPPER LIMIT ? Does your Leftie agenda leave you no latitude at all on that score ?


But you're not even willing to apply your own definition; the Nazis were terrorists but you won't call them subhuman; the Japanese Imperial Army were terrorists but you won't call them subhuman; Nelson Mandela was a terrorist and you won't call him subhuman. TRUTH doesn't get conceded.

Immaterial to my point, above. All of these examples of yours deal with history. I'm concerned with a PRESENT DAY scourge. One where the scum responsible not only lack any trace of the humanity which should prevent them from committing their acts, but are likewise incapable of feeling the smallest regret for any of it. Rather, they CELEBRATE their subhumanites and barbarities.

And in any case, to answer your diversionary point, DID Nazis, DID the Japanese, DID Mandela, ever have the capacity for regret over their actions ? Because those you absolutely insist upon wanting to enjoy 'human rights' have NO such capacity. They are devoid of it, just as they're devoid of humanity in the first place.


The point of my other statement is proving that you're a big government hack.

As the one-time 'Ultimate Thatcherite', as the one-time 'One True Thatcherite', you should've also been the 'Ultimate', or 'One True', advocate of every single occasion when Margaret Thatcher exercised Big Government solutions to problems ! But you insist, it seems, upon defying recognition that, on occasions, nothing else will serve.

Margaret knew it. I know it (because I've witnessed the evolution of problems where no other answer to them existed). But you, supposed 'Ultimate' or 'One True' supporter of hers, seemingly DO NOT.

Your fraudulence is therefore undeniable.


Also, thank you for more proof that you ask stupid questions with stupid underlying premises; even disgusting humans are free to be killed and arrested if necessary in response to their actions. Should I point out that Mags opposed torture and that your "Proudly Thatcherite" tag is false?

Also point out, because after all, it is RELEVANT, that Margaret never faced the level of terrorism, nor its extent of subhumanity, that we see in the world today. Funny how you keep forgetting that.

'Disgusting humans', AND terrorist scum, are subject to State controls and decisions each and every time an arrest occurs, or, when military action kills them. The Gitmo establishment is not a privately-run enterprise, it's run by the American State. Gitmo is, of itself, a State, or Big Government, answer to terrorists whose captivity can serve a purpose or serve justice.

Now, tell me. Since that's so, do you want Gitmo closed down ? Because if so, you follow a LEFTIE imperative in the process.

By defying that status quo, show us a display of your Leftieness, FJ .. or, accept that the Big Government solution to open and maintain Gitmo is a Big Government measure that deserves support !!

[Gunny]

Y'all are like having two little brothers around. Y'all'd fuss about what color the sky is. :laugh:

[fj1200]

... and there it is .. an absolute refusal to recognise that terrorists are less than human, therefore, NOT deserving of 'human rights'.

This was pivotal to our other, older argument. You insisted that terrorists had a right to those 'rights'. Conceding that they weren't human would've defeated your stance on that, so, you never did so.

You STILL won't.

Tell us all, please, how many people will have to die, or be injured or mutilated, before you give this stance up !!!

OR IS THERE NO UPPER LIMIT ? Does your Leftie agenda leave you no latitude at all on that score ?

TRUTH is a B*tch sometimes. But you do what you always do; rant like a fool, stomp your feet, and hold your breath constantly demanding that people accept your faulty logic.


Immaterial to my point, above. All of these examples of yours deal with history. I'm concerned with a PRESENT DAY scourge. One where the scum responsible not only lack any trace of the humanity which should prevent them from committing their acts, but are likewise incapable of feeling the smallest regret for any of it. Rather, they CELEBRATE their subhumanites and barbarities.

And in any case, to answer your diversionary point, DID Nazis, DID the Japanese, DID Mandela, ever have the capacity for regret over their actions ? Because those you absolutely insist upon wanting to enjoy 'human rights' have NO such capacity. They are devoid of it, just as they're devoid of humanity in the first place.

Showing you the failure of your logic is not immaterial, it shows the undeniable hypocrisy of your viewpoint. I can only assume that they had regrets when they lost, it's important to make sure present day terrorists lose as well.


As the one-time 'Ultimate Thatcherite', as the one-time 'One True Thatcherite', you should've also been the 'Ultimate', or 'One True', advocate of every single occasion when Margaret Thatcher exercised Big Government solutions to problems ! But you insist, it seems, upon defying recognition that, on occasions, nothing else will serve.

Margaret knew it. I know it (because I've witnessed the evolution of problems where no other answer to them existed). But you, supposed 'Ultimate' or 'One True' supporter of hers, seemingly DO NOT.

Your fraudulence is therefore undeniable.

This thread isn't about your big government viewpoints.


Also point out, because after all, it is RELEVANT, that Margaret never faced the level of terrorism, nor its extent of subhumanity, that we see in the world today. Funny how you keep forgetting that.

'Disgusting humans', AND terrorist scum, are subject to State controls and decisions each and every time an arrest occurs, or, when military action kills them. The Gitmo establishment is not a privately-run enterprise, it's run by the American State. Gitmo is, of itself, a State, or Big Government, answer to terrorists whose captivity can serve a purpose or serve justice.

Now, tell me. Since that's so, do you want Gitmo closed down ? Because if so, you follow a LEFTIE imperative in the process.

By defying that status quo, show us a display of your Leftieness, FJ .. or, accept that the Big Government solution to open and maintain Gitmo is a Big Government measure that deserves support !!

Let's take a look at Mags and her torture stance shall we?


The truth: Lady T rejected torture (unlike you know who) (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1295368/How-Vince-Cable-positioned-Coalitions-rebel-leader.html)

Having done so, Thatcher, then in her very last days in power, issued clear instructions to the intelligence services: that they were not in any circumstances 'to use any intelligence that might have come from torture'.
We know this thanks to the extraordinary testimony of the former diplomat Craig Murray who, under questioning by MPs, revealed that British policy on torture was explicitly changed under the Blair regime.

I have since been told that there were two reasons for Margaret Thatcher's decision.
First, and most important, she was a deeply moral human being who instinctively knew that the use of torture was profoundly alien to British values.

The second reason was more pragmatic. She believed that information extracted under extreme physical duress was not to be trusted.
This wise and principled stand was hurriedly and secretly dropped under the Blair government.


So Thatcherism to you is tossing out her principles based on fear and hatred when it's inconvenient. Proven: You're a fraud.

I've never advocated Gitmo being closed. More evidence of your imagination when TRUTH fails you.

[reason10]

Anyone want to defend the ragheads on THIS one?

Let's not forget that for centuries, (while the ragheads were still having sex with camels and starving to death in the desert) honor killings were quite in vogue in European and American society. Remember that famous duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. That was an honor killing.

It was wrong back then and it's wrong today. Killing for reasons other than combat or self defense is STILL murder. PERIOD. End of argument. A raghead who murders his wife even if she's banging the Eighth Army Infantry Division on ESPN is a murderer. He should face the death penalty: a firing squad where the bullets have been dipped in pig's blood.