Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Muslim man in Dallas kills daughters; for acting like Americans
Topic Started: Jan 4 2008, 11:56 AM (2,524 Views)
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Dandandat
Jan 11 2008, 12:01 AM
ImpulseEngine
Jan 10 2008, 12:45 AM
I don't see what it matters whether the motive was "honor killings".  A father murdering his children is equally horrific no matter what the reason.


Disclaimer I am just answering your questions logicly and not in a maner that sugests my opinion on the matter.

It would stand to reason that for the person's who take issue with the idea of "honor killings" and this issue would most certainly agree that murder is wrong regardless of whether it is an "honor Killing". That particular point is agreed upon by all and so it is a non-point. The reason for discussing this article in the manner it was presented was to deal with the "Honor Killing" aspect of the case in its own right and how it deals with the Muslim community. Agreeing that murder is wrong regardless does not negate the importance of this other aspect of the issue in ts own right.


Quote:
 
Article 1
Article 2

Those are two examples of father's murdering their own kids.  Should we demand Americans as a whole stand up and condemn these heinous acts?  Americans aren't responsible for these murders.  Individuals are...


Americans as a whole have(/will) stood up and condemned these heinous acts. It’s called a conviction through trial by jury and the congressional passing of laws that prohibit these acts. Both bodies, the jury, and the congress are a real representation of the collective will of the American people. There actions should be and are seen as America as a whole voicing an opinion on an issue.

Now to put this in context, it would seem those who have issue with Muslims and the condemnation of “honor killing” do not believe that an equivalent condemnation is coming from the Muslim community. I doubt that the people who feel this is an issue want every single Muslim to make a statement; they want those who represent the greater Muslim community to make a statement on behalf of the whole. They believe this is not happening.

This may or may not have happened, it may or may not be needed, but the way you phrase your questions here are suggesting something that is not true (in the second quote) or deflationary (in the first quote).

I have the impression that here in Australia , they have done just that and ridicled mullahs here who defended the abuse of women (and children) or honour killings , which are pretty rare here (of all kinds including those which are perpetrated by men who just happen to be muslims).

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Dr. Noah
Jan 10 2008, 07:16 AM
I am curious, for those who say they "prefer" Western culture, have you ever lived in another?

I don't mean on a military base, I mean in the culture itself. Learning the language and the culture, not just reading about it. It's like having vanilla ice cream and deciding it's your favorite without trying another.

Noah - Maybe calling our civilization "western" without being more specific is wrong here.

Eastern cultures, such as the one you have been experiencing can be wonderful. Culture goes beyond "eastern" and "western". There are hundreds of "cultures". There are more then one culture represented within Judiasm. There are many cultures represented among those who practice Islam. That is one of the reasons I shifted the discussion away from religion and into culture. There is a culture in some countries that does allow these atrocities. However, it is interesting to note that even in those countries it still is not any more widespread then plain old spousal and child abuse is here. That's why I say it is more about power then it is about religion. And most normal people don't feel the need to subjugate thier family in this way. No matter where they come from.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
somerled
Jan 10 2008, 08:55 AM
Minuet
Jan 10 2008, 12:08 AM
Somerled - you really don't have a clue about what you are talking about do you?

Just because the BBC broadcasts in a myriad of languages does not mean the the content is not originating from the BBC.  :rolleyes:

It is you that is making the serious allegation - not me. Think about it. What type of reputation would the BBC have if they did not bother to check content before broadcasting? I am not refering to changing things here - I am refering to simple checks for accuracy.  No news service is going to simply broadcast content from other sources without a simple check for accuracy. All news services do broadcast clips from other services - but none do so in "real time". It's just not a realistic scenario.

So like I said - if you believe that they simply broadcast content from other sources in real time without checking for basic accuracy then you are naive.

It is you have doesn't have a clue. The BBC relays these broadcasts and warns that the content and opinions broadcast in the programs are not the BBC's responsibility and do not necessarily reflect the BBC's editorial opinion.
(SBS here does the same when they broadcast the German (english) news and the american news.)

I know BBC has foreign language news broadcast services.

I am talking about their ALL ENGLISH LANGUAGE 24 HOUR WORLD NEWS BROADCAST SERVICE ,where they simply pick up and relay foreign radio news segments from a variety of countries as broadcast by them.

Still waiting for you to prove your claim about them, but not going to hold my breath since your resorted to personal insults rather than actually providing proof - for obvious reasons .

How about you look up the BBC WORLD NEWS RADIO service's frequency and tune your radio in to it and give it a good listen rather than talking out of ignorance having never listened to it and several of the different foreign broadcaster programs relayed by them.
Heck , you even risk learning something by doing this , and perhaps becoming better informed than you seem to be.

Prove my claim :rotfl: Coming from the person who makes the most unfounded and ridiculous claims that I know this is a complete joke.

What claim do you think I made? The only claim I made is that the BBC has it's own biases, which cannot be denied. I stated quite clearly that the BBC could be part of one's sources, but simply should not be the only source.

It is pure ignorance to suggest that there is only one reliable source and that you should get all your news from one spot. I made a balanced and reasonable statement. Your jumping to the defence of a service that I did not even insult is a reflection of your own biases and unwillingness to seek out a wide variety of sources.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Minuet
Jan 11 2008, 12:18 AM
somerled
Jan 10 2008, 08:55 AM
Minuet
Jan 10 2008, 12:08 AM
Somerled - you really don't have a clue about what you are talking about do you?

Just because the BBC broadcasts in a myriad of languages does not mean the the content is not originating from the BBC.  :rolleyes:

It is you that is making the serious allegation - not me. Think about it. What type of reputation would the BBC have if they did not bother to check content before broadcasting? I am not refering to changing things here - I am refering to simple checks for accuracy.  No news service is going to simply broadcast content from other sources without a simple check for accuracy. All news services do broadcast clips from other services - but none do so in "real time". It's just not a realistic scenario.

So like I said - if you believe that they simply broadcast content from other sources in real time without checking for basic accuracy then you are naive.

It is you have doesn't have a clue. The BBC relays these broadcasts and warns that the content and opinions broadcast in the programs are not the BBC's responsibility and do not necessarily reflect the BBC's editorial opinion.
(SBS here does the same when they broadcast the German (english) news and the american news.)

I know BBC has foreign language news broadcast services.

I am talking about their ALL ENGLISH LANGUAGE 24 HOUR WORLD NEWS BROADCAST SERVICE ,where they simply pick up and relay foreign radio news segments from a variety of countries as broadcast by them.

Still waiting for you to prove your claim about them, but not going to hold my breath since your resorted to personal insults rather than actually providing proof - for obvious reasons .

How about you look up the BBC WORLD NEWS RADIO service's frequency and tune your radio in to it and give it a good listen rather than talking out of ignorance having never listened to it and several of the different foreign broadcaster programs relayed by them.
Heck , you even risk learning something by doing this , and perhaps becoming better informed than you seem to be.

Prove my claim :rotfl: Coming from the person who makes the most unfounded and ridiculous claims that I know this is a complete joke.

What claim do you think I made? The only claim I made is that the BBC has it's own biases, which cannot be denied. I stated quite clearly that the BBC could be part of one's sources, but simply should not be the only source.

It is pure ignorance to suggest that there is only one reliable source and that you should get all your news from one spot. I made a balanced and reasonable statement. Your jumping to the defence of a service that I did not even insult is a reflection of your own biases and unwillingness to seek out a wide variety of sources.

Your words :
Quote:
 
I don't understand your point Somerled. This is still all BBC - they are not broadcasting the POV of other networks and stations.


Actually on the BBC channel I have been referring to , they do. BBC has no say on the editorial content of NPR , the german and french and other services who's news they pick up and relay , nor do they change it or censor it , makes for interesting listening.



Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Dr. Noah
Jan 10 2008, 07:16 AM
I don't mean on a military base, I mean in the culture itself. Learning the language and the culture, not just reading about it. It's like having vanilla ice cream and deciding it's your favorite without trying another.

I would disagree completely. One need not immerse them selves in an experience in order to judge what it would be like.

To use your crude analogy, if I don’t like strawberries I don’t need to eat strawberry ice-cream to know I wont like it. I have the mental ability to draw upon the experiences I have had to draw relatively actuate inferences about experiences I have not had.

I don’t need to jump off a bridge to know I wont like jumping off a bridge. I don’t need to taste an exotic dish when I don’t like the smell to know I most likely won’t like the taste.

Of course there are always exceptions, but that does not negate the fact that most of the time the human mind can make accurate inferences about things it has not experienced.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
Dandandat
Jan 10 2008, 07:01 AM
It would stand to reason that for the person's who take issue with the idea of "honor killings" and this issue would most certainly agree that murder is wrong regardless of whether it is an "honor Killing". That particular point is agreed upon by all and so it is a non-point. The reason for discussing this article in the manner it was presented was to deal with the "Honor Killing" aspect of the case in its own right and how it deals with the Muslim community. Agreeing that murder is wrong regardless does not negate the importance of this other aspect of the issue in ts own right.
Thank you.


Dandandat
Jan 10 2008, 07:01 AM
Quote:
 
Should we demand Americans as a whole stand up and condemn these heinous acts?

Americans as a whole have(/will) stood up and condemned these heinous acts. It’s called a conviction through trial by jury and the congressional passing of laws that prohibit these acts. Both bodies, the jury, and the congress are a real representation of the collective will of the American people. There actions should be and are seen as America as a whole voicing an opinion on an issue.
Thank you again.

I challenge anyone to find one respectable American who does not condemn these acts.

Dandandat
Jan 10 2008, 07:01 AM
Now to put this in context, it would seem those who have issue with Muslims and the condemnation of “honor killing” do not believe that an equivalent condemnation is coming from the Muslim community. I doubt that the people who feel this is an issue want every single Muslim to make a statement; they want those who represent the greater Muslim community to make a statement on behalf of the whole. They believe this is not happening.
Once again, thank you.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
RTW
Jan 10 2008, 11:14 AM
Dandandat
Jan 10 2008, 07:01 AM
It would stand to reason that for the person's who take issue with the idea of "honor killings" and this issue would most certainly agree that murder is wrong regardless of whether it is an "honor Killing". That particular point is agreed upon by all and so it is a non-point. The reason for discussing this article in the manner it was presented was to deal with the "Honor Killing" aspect of the case in its own right and how it deals with the Muslim community. Agreeing that murder is wrong regardless does not negate the importance of this other aspect of the issue in ts own right.
Thank you.


Dandandat
Jan 10 2008, 07:01 AM
Quote:
 
Should we demand Americans as a whole stand up and condemn these heinous acts?

Americans as a whole have(/will) stood up and condemned these heinous acts. It’s called a conviction through trial by jury and the congressional passing of laws that prohibit these acts. Both bodies, the jury, and the congress are a real representation of the collective will of the American people. There actions should be and are seen as America as a whole voicing an opinion on an issue.
Thank you again.

I challenge anyone to find one respectable American who does not condemn these acts.

Dandandat
Jan 10 2008, 07:01 AM
Now to put this in context, it would seem those who have issue with Muslims and the condemnation of “honor killing” do not believe that an equivalent condemnation is coming from the Muslim community. I doubt that the people who feel this is an issue want every single Muslim to make a statement; they want those who represent the greater Muslim community to make a statement on behalf of the whole. They believe this is not happening.
Once again, thank you.

But I am still not convinced that Muslims "as a whole" have not condemned these acts.

Singling them out is wrong. I have shown that they do indeed condemn these acts.

Quote:
 

I challenge anyone to find one respectable American who does not condemn these acts.


This comment is particularly troubling to me. Are you insinuating that those citizens of your country that happen to be Muslim are not "respectable" Americans?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Minuet
Jan 10 2008, 12:09 PM
Quote:
 

I challenge anyone to find one respectable American who does not condemn these acts.


This comment is particularly troubling to me. Are you insinuating that those citizens of your country that happen to be Muslim are not "respectable" Americans?

This comment does not make sense to me. RTW is asking that someone show him one respectable American that would not condemn the actions shown in IE's two linked articles.

By inference he is making this challenge because he thinks he can find one person who is respected by the Muslim community that will not condemn "honor killings" thus showing that IE's linked articles and point is irrelevant and showing that there is a difference between the American culture and the Muslim culture. This can be true whether or not there are Muslim Americans. It is the culture in discussion not individuals with in the culture.

You are trying to combine the two thoughts into one and creating a derogatory comment where non exists.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dandandat
Jan 10 2008, 09:01 AM
ImpulseEngine
Jan 10 2008, 12:45 AM
I don't see what it matters whether the motive was "honor killings".  A father murdering his children is equally horrific no matter what the reason.


Disclaimer I am just answering your questions logicly and not in a maner that sugests my opinion on the matter.

It would stand to reason that for the person's who take issue with the idea of "honor killings" and this issue would most certainly agree that murder is wrong regardless of whether it is an "honor Killing". That particular point is agreed upon by all and so it is a non-point. The reason for discussing this article in the manner it was presented was to deal with the "Honor Killing" aspect of the case in its own right and how it deals with the Muslim community. Agreeing that murder is wrong regardless does not negate the importance of this other aspect of the issue in ts own right.


Quote:
 
Article 1
Article 2

Those are two examples of father's murdering their own kids.  Should we demand Americans as a whole stand up and condemn these heinous acts?  Americans aren't responsible for these murders.  Individuals are...


Americans as a whole have(/will) stood up and condemned these heinous acts. It’s called a conviction through trial by jury and the congressional passing of laws that prohibit these acts. Both bodies, the jury, and the congress are a real representation of the collective will of the American people. There actions should be and are seen as America as a whole voicing an opinion on an issue.

Now to put this in context, it would seem those who have issue with Muslims and the condemnation of “honor killing” do not believe that an equivalent condemnation is coming from the Muslim community. I doubt that the people who feel this is an issue want every single Muslim to make a statement; they want those who represent the greater Muslim community to make a statement on behalf of the whole. They believe this is not happening.

This may or may not have happened, it may or may not be needed, but the way you phrase your questions here are suggesting something that is not true (in the second quote) or deflationary (in the first quote).

Dan,

First off, I recognize that you have not necessarily expressed your personal opinion here. But to address the position you have summarized:

As I said, Americans are not responsible for those murders in the articles I linked, individuals are. I pointed that out because the same is true for Muslims. Muslims are not responsible for honor killings, individuals are. Muslims, as a group do not condone honor killings and Muslims as a group have stood up and condemned these actions. In addition, in some Muslim countries, most notably Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, honor killings are virtually unheard of. It is not a standard Muslim practice as some seem to believe.

Furthermore, honor killings are not specific to Muslims. Honor killings are the murder of a family member who is perceived to have disgraced the family in some way. Among the most common reasons for honor killings are women who have been sexually promiscuous (or perceived as such) or have committed adultery. I'm sure you could find examples of husbands and boyfriends killing wives and girlfriends in just about every culture and religion for similar reasons.

I'm somewhat pressed for time right now so I don't have links, but if you search the internet you will find Syria has condemned honor killings as against the Islamic religion (and I believe outlawed the practice as well) and both Pakistan and Lebanon have issued fatwas against honor killings. There are probably other examples too, but those are the ones I know about offhand. It is simply hypocritical for people to accept American laws and trials as evidence of American condemnation, but then to ignore the condemnations that have come from the Muslim community.

So, in summary, demanding Muslim condemnation of such actions as the murders by this father in the article at the top of the thread reflects a bias against Muslims where existing Muslim condemnations are ignored and similar actions by other groups of people, including Americans, are not seized upon in the same way by the same people. And if the excuse is "I didn't know about those condemnations", then perhaps people should learn to look before they point their accusatory fingers. The unwillingness to give benefit of the doubt and go looking before making assumptions and accusations says something about prejudice as well. And that goes back to my original point - it hasn't even been established that this man is in fact guilty of murdering his daughters nor that the reason was honor killings.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Dandandat
Jan 10 2008, 12:39 PM
Minuet
Jan 10 2008, 12:09 PM
Quote:
 

I challenge anyone to find one respectable American who does not condemn these acts.


This comment is particularly troubling to me. Are you insinuating that those citizens of your country that happen to be Muslim are not "respectable" Americans?

This comment does not make sense to me. RTW is asking that someone show him one respectable American that would not condemn the actions shown in IE's two linked articles.

By inference he is making this challenge because he thinks he can find one person who is respected by the Muslim community that will not condemn "honor killings" thus showing that IE's linked articles and point is irrelevant and showing that there is a difference between the American culture and the Muslim culture. This can be true whether or not there are Muslim Americans. It is the culture in discussion not individuals with in the culture.

You are trying to combine the two thoughts into one and creating a derogatory comment where non exists.

Your line of reasoning here does not make logical sense.

Maybe you should let RTW answer the question himself. I based the question on the inferences made throughout the entire thread that Muslims do not condemn these acts. If I am wrong then let him explain his comments more fully himself.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
ImpulseEngine
 
So, in summary, demanding Muslim condemnation of such actions as the murders by this father in the article at the top of the thread reflects a bias against Muslims where existing Muslim condemnations are ignored and similar actions by other groups of people, including Americans, are not seized upon in the same way by the same people. And if the excuse is "I didn't know about those condemnations", then perhaps people should learn to look before they point their accusatory fingers. The unwillingness to give benefit of the doubt and go looking before making assumptions and accusations says something about prejudice as well


:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
RTW
Jan 10 2008, 11:14 AM
I challenge anyone to find one respectable American who does not condemn these acts.
There are plenty of respectable Americans who don't condemn them - the ones who never get into a conversation about them. But I would agree that those people would condemn them, if asked about their opinion on the matter. Surely, that's what you really meant. I had to make that distinction because the actual position isn't necessarily the issue with Muslims, but whether they are publicly expressing it and whether not doing so reflects their actual position.

If I have interpreted your stance correctly, then I put out the same challenge. I don't believe anyone will find one respectable American or Muslim who does not condemn these acts, if asked because I would also say the very act of not condemning them in that case makes one not respectable... :rolleyes:

But anyway your whole tangent wasn't my point. My point was no one is asking for American leaders (or leaders of other national, cultural, or religious groups) to publicly denounce these murders like they are asking of Muslim leaders.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
IE - are you forgetting that that millions of Muslims ARE American?

That was the point of my question to RTW.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
I believe when RTW said "respectable Americans", it included "respectable Muslim Americans".

Edit:
I think I finally got why you directed that to me. I worded this poorly:
Quote:
 
I don't believe anyone will find one respectable American or Muslim who does not condemn these acts
That should say "American or non-American Muslim".

Thanks.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Thanks for the clarification IE.

I don't agree entirely about what RTW really meant. My question is out there for him to answer himself rather then you, Dandandat, or myself trying to guess. I did explain why I asked and why I have the impression I do. I will listen to his answer and hopefully he can explain the other comments he has made in the thread that led to my impression.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus