Another Islamist in the West Kills His Own Child - You BASTARD!

[Si modo]

Accusing me of dishonesty is a popular recourse among this forum's worst and dullest (particularly the aspirant orientalists who enjoy accusing me of "taqiyyah" .) ....

If you're accusing me of calling you as one of the "taqiyyah", I haven't. So now that that is clarified, you don't wear the victim-of-being-called-dishonest costume too well when in the last two hours I've nabbed you in your dishonesty twice, here:

Look at that, an A-rab 'honor' killing (of a guy). Quelle surprise.

Look at that, a poster who needs to work on her reading comprehension.

Ahmed Saleh was killed by his wife’s brother Rami Atef Khella, 28, who was angered by his sister’s conversion to Islam three years earlier. Khella also shot his sister, Miriam, 25, and the couple’s 18-month daughter, Nora, who are in critical condition in the hospital.​

She ain't dead, now is she? You know: killing? dead? My reading seems significantly more effective than yours.

Regardless, it's an Arab. No surprise.

And here

[She ain't dead, now is she? My reading seems significantly more effective than yours.

Neither is the girl in the OP's article; did you bother reading that? Does that make the crime more excusable in either case?

Rest assured, reading comprehension doesn't seem to be a weakness of mine. You have attempted to pin this incident on Islam and Muslims when the article -- which doesn't specify the family's religious persuasion -- clearly states that the father's motivations were cultural.

OK. You're being dishonest again: Where did I say the OP referred to a killing? If you could read, or if you were honest, you would know I said "egregious violence" with respect to the OP. And, it's a good bet an Arab family is Muslim. Or would you like to dispute that?

So, you own the dishonesty, Kalem.

 

[Kalam]

You don't wear the victim-of-being-called-dishonest costume too well

Pretending to be a victim would involve acknowledging that my opponents possess some degree of superiority over me. The posters in question most certainly do not.

when in the last two hours I've nabbed you in your dishonesty twice, here:

She ain't dead, now is she? You know: killing? dead? My reading seems significantly more effective than yours.

Regardless, it's an Arab. No surprise.

That was dishonest? Pointing out that you conveniently omitted the attempted murder of a woman and her infant child from your "summary" of the article? I respectfully disagree. Please do better than this if you're going to accuse me of something I view as a breach of my religious duty.

And here

OK. You're being dishonest again: Where did I say the OP referred to a killing? If you could read, or if you were honest, you would know I said "egregious violence" with respect to the OP.

While you seem to imply that an actual killing took place in post #38 of thread, you're right, you never unambiguously called the incident a murder. I apologize for this mistake; everybody else had done so and I'd assumed that you had as well.

 

[Si modo]

You don't wear the victim-of-being-called-dishonest costume too well

Pretending to be a victim would involve acknowledging that my opponents possess some degree of superiority over me. The posters in question most certainly do not.

when in the last two hours I've nabbed you in your dishonesty twice, here:

She ain't dead, now is she? You know: killing? dead? My reading seems significantly more effective than yours.

Regardless, it's an Arab. No surprise.

That was dishonest? Pointing out that you conveniently omitted the attempted murder of a woman and her infant child from your "summary" of the article? I respectfully disagree. Please do better than this if you're going to accuse me of something I view as a breach of my religious duty.

And here

OK. You're being dishonest again: Where did I say the OP referred to a killing? If you could read, or if you were honest, you would know I said "egregious violence" with respect to the OP.

While you seem to imply that an actual killing took place in post #38 of thread, you're right, you never unambiguously called the incident a murder. I apologize for this mistake; everybody else had done so and I'd assumed that you had as well.

You dishonestly represented my words, Kalem. You wear the dishonesty moniker well. Or maybe you are just dull and can't understand the written word in my posts?

And your character leaves a lot to be desired as now you are trying to weasel out of your dishonesty. Your dishonesty = telling others that I said the victim in the OP was killed + telling others that I said only the Egyptian man was killed when he was the only one who WAS killed.

 

[Kalam]

You dishonestly represented my words, Kalem.

In the first example you cited, that's absolutely untrue. If anybody was peddling half-truths in that exchange, it was you. In the second example, I made a mistake out of carelessness.

Or maybe you are just dull and can't understand the writtne word in my posts?

Maybe.

 

[Si modo]

You dishonestly represented my words, Kalem.

In the first example you cited, that's absolutely untrue. If anybody was peddling half-truths in that exchange, it was you. In the second example, I made a mistake out of carelessness. ....

NOW you admit to it. That's something. Good.

....

Or maybe you are just dull and can't understand the writtne word in my posts?

Maybe.

Check the edit. Like typos never happen, but congrats on that skill requiring such a high level of intellect.

 

[Kalam]

And your character leaves a lot to be desired as now you are trying to weasel out of your dishonesty.

Gosh, I'll have to remember not to call upon you as a character witness should the need ever arise.

Your dishonesty = telling others that I said the victim in the OP was killed

This was a careless error for which I've already taken responsibility.

telling others that I said only the Egyptian man was killed when he was the only one who WAS killed.

I think that attempted fratricide and infanticide were details worth mentioning. I think you knew this as well.

 

[Kalam]

NOW you admit to it. That's something. Good.

"Now"? See post #82.

Check the edit. Like typos never happen, but congrats on that skill requiring such a high level of intellect.

Thank you.

 

[Si modo]

[edited out already addressed drivel from you]
I think that attempted fratricide and infanticide were details worth mentioning. I think you knew this as well.

Sure it was worth mentioning. You didn't just mention it though, your implication was that I lied when I said the guy was the only one who was killed.

Don't lie to me or about my words. I accept opposing views but I give dishonesty about my words no quarter.

 

[Kalam]

Sure it was worth mentioning.

What made you change your mind?

You didn't just mention it though, your implication was that I lied when I said the guy was the only one who was killed.

I'm not sure why you think this. The short passage I posted specifically mentioned that the daughter and mother were at a hospital... I simply thought that it was dishonest of you to leave that detail out.

 

[Si modo]

Sure it was worth mentioning.

What made you change your mind? ....

How did I change my mind?

Don't weasel again.

....

You didn't just mention it though, your implication was that I lied when I said the guy was the only one who was killed.

I'm not sure why you think this. The short passage I posted specifically mentioned that the daughter and mother were at a hospital... I simply thought that it was dishonest of you to leave that detail out.

I left nothing out. YOU provided the link. ALL of the information is there. The man was the only one who was killed, which is EXACTLY what I said.

You're being dishonest again and weaseling.

I am tenacious, too, whenever that happens.

And, it was another 'honor' killing by an Arab. No surprise.

 

[Kalam]

How did I change my mind?

You apparently didn't think it was worth mentioning, because... well... you didn't mention it.

I left nothing out. YOU provided the link. The man was the only one who was killed.

The impression I got from your post was that you mistakenly believed that nothing else had occurred.

You're being dishonest again and weaseling.

So you keep saying.

And, it was another 'honor' killing by an Arab. No surprise.

Based on the information you told me to examine, I'd say that this isn't a statistical likelihood as you suggested it was. I wonder if a thread about a Hindu bride-slaying would be as popular as this one? After all, Indian Hindus seem to be more prone to honor killing than any other single ethnoreligious group. How many vitriolic denunciations of Hinduism do you think such a thread would produce?

 

[Maple]

These people are again showing their extreme ignorance and intolerance of any and all who do not believe what they have stupidly bought into.

 

[Kalam]

These people are again showing their extreme ignorance and intolerance of any and all who do not believe what they have stupidly bought into.

I'm not sure who you're referring to, but I'd say that this statement applies to the perpetrator of the crime as well as to several of the participants in this thread. Especially the ones that are so gung-ho about turning this into a religious issue and claiming that America and Islam are "incompatible."

 

[Si modo]

How did I change my mind?

You apparently didn't think it was worth mentioning, because... well... you didn't mention it. ....

As my mentioning it would be redundant; all of the information was in the link. I am efficient. Some have issues with efficiency. Yet, you called that dishonest. How bizarre of you.

....

I left nothing out. YOU provided the link. The man was the only one who was killed.

The impression I got from your post was that you mistakenly believed that nothing else had occurred. ....

And that erroneous assumption of yours made you look like an ass, thus the test of time for the adage about assumptions.

....

You're being dishonest again and weaseling.

So you keep saying. ....

As an honest poster, of course I would keep saying it.

....

And, it was another 'honor' killing by an Arab. No surprise.

Based on the information you told me to examine, I'd say that this isn't a statistical likelihood as you suggested it was. I wonder if a thread about a Hindu bride-slaying would be as popular as this one? After all, Indian Hindus seem to be more prone to honor killing than any other single ethnoreligious group. How many vitriolic denunciations of Hinduism do you think that such a thread would produce?

Still, it's no surprise that both acts of violence - the OP and the Egyptian 'honor' killing - are by Arabs.

As I said, I accept that you are in denial that Arabs are known for their honor killings. Maybe if more Arabs who oppose that speak out about it rather than giving tacit approval through deflection and marginalization, that would change.

 

[GHook93]

And, it's a good bet an Arab family is Muslim.

Egypt alone has several million arab christians.

Turkey also has several million arab christians.

Syria, Iraq and Lebanon have fairly large arab christian communities.
__________________

Egypt 90% Muslim
Turkey 98% Muslim
Syria 95% Muslim
Iraq 98% Muslim
Lebanon used to have a Christian majority and now they make up close to 25%! They are getting ethnically cleansed out of Lebanon!

 

[Si modo]

And, it's a good bet an Arab family is Muslim.

Egypt alone has several million arab christians.

Turkey also has several million arab christians.

Syria, Iraq and Lebanon have fairly large arab christian communities.
__________________

Egypt 90% Muslim
Turkey 98% Muslim
Syria 95% Muslim
Iraq 98% Muslim
Lebanon used to have a Christian majority and now they make up close to 25%! They are getting ethnically cleansed out of Lebanon!

Place your bets, folks.

 

[Zander]

How did I change my mind?

You apparently didn't think it was worth mentioning, because... well... you didn't mention it.

I left nothing out. YOU provided the link. The man was the only one who was killed.

The impression I got from your post was that you mistakenly believed that nothing else had occurred.

You're being dishonest again and weaseling.

So you keep saying.

And, it was another 'honor' killing by an Arab. No surprise.

Based on the information you told me to examine, I'd say that this isn't a statistical likelihood as you suggested it was. I wonder if a thread about a Hindu bride-slaying would be as popular as this one? After all, Indian Hindus seem to be more prone to honor killing than any other single ethnoreligious group. How many vitriolic denunciations of Hinduism do you think such a thread would produce?

Honor killings are wrong regardless of who does them, whether it is Hindus, Rastafarians, or Christians. But remember, as horrible as they are, honor killings are not mass murder. The only people that regularly commit mass murder in the name of religion are Muslims.

 

[Kalam]

As my mentioning it would be redundant;

Then why did you mention any of it in the first place?

And that erroneous assumption of yours made you look like an ass, thus the test of time for the adage about assumptions.

What else was I to assume? You left out the worst parts of the man's crime. I wouldn't have thought that you'd do that on purpose.

As an honest poster, of course I would keep saying it.

It sounds like you're desperately trying to convince yourself that I'm dishonest by making sure to let me know whenever the opportunity presents itself. Do it as much as you'd like; I wouldn't last long as a Muslim online if I didn't have a high tolerance for inane accusations of dishonesty.

Still, it's no surprise that both acts of violence - the OP and the Egyptian 'honor' killing - are by Arabs.

As I said, I accept that you are in denial that Arabs are known for their honor killings.

Well, one of the articles was from an Egyptian publication, so I'd expect it to deal mostly with things involving Arabs. Regarding the CNN article, yes, I'm quite aware of the trend in the mainstream media that involves emphasizing stories such as that one over accounts of much more common atrocities.

Maybe if more Arabs who oppose that speak out about it rather than giving tacit approval through deflection and marginalization, that would change.

Yes, maybe. I'd recommend bringing this to the attention of an Arab.

 

[Kalam]

Lebanon used to have a Christian majority and now they make up close to 25%!

That would be about 40%.

They are getting ethnically cleansed out of Lebanon!

The most significant act of Lebanese "ethnic cleansing" was the other way around. You should remember this one:

Sabra and Shatila massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Kalam]

Honor killings are wrong regardless of who does them, whether it is Hindus, Rastafarians, or Christians. But remember, as horrible as they are, honor killings are not mass murder. The only people that regularly commit mass murder in the name of religion are Muslims.

You don't really believe that, do you? As bad as "Islamic" terrorist groups can be, none of them can hold a candle to groups such as the LRA:

Lord's Resistance Army (LRA)

"The LRA rebels say they are fighting for the establishment of a government based on the biblical Ten Commandments."