More abject horseshit. ALL cities are run by Democrats, and guess what -- they don't get to expound on political philosophies in City Hall. They get to decide which day the trash is picked up and when the snowplows run. Your desperate deflection attempt is absurd.
You are a moron......democrats demonize business owners and hate them and see them as just sources of money...so they tax them, fine them and assess fees to the point where only large companies can exist in their cities, meaning fewer jobs......the democrats don't care about educating children...especially minority children because of they did then education rates in these inner cities would be greater than 50 % and the children who graduated could actually read and do math...instead, the democrats support their allies in the education wing of the democrat party...the teachers unions....who fight every educational reform there is....but contribute vast sums of money to their allies in the political wing of the democrat party.....
then you have the police...hated by the democrats trapped in democrat controlled inner cities...why....because the police are not there to help keep them safe, but to keep their generational poverty and crime from spilling over into the rich democrat areas of these cities....and the rich democrats....don't care about those poor people...except for Election Day.....so instead of providing enough police to keep them safe..they spend tax money on every thing except for the police...as Chicago and Milwaukee have done...and then they under staff the police, under fund the police, and finally undermine the police....thank you mayor deblasio...
and the democrat policies revealed here create the soldiers for gangs and drug cartels, and all the independent, violent criminals who will then use guns for crime and murder....
So yes you stupid fool.....democrat governing policies do effect a city....moron...
Complete crock of horseshit. Political philosophies are simply irrelevant at a local level. Your desperate fantasy scenaria, all undocumented ipse dixit, is just more pathetic lunging to put points up on a political scoreboard in the juvenile Eliminationism football game you think all of this is. The simple fact is all cities see more crime and more violence. It's the price of squeezing too many people into too small a space. That has nothing to do with ******* "Democrats", ******* "Republicans", ******* "Whigs", ******* "Tories" or ******* "Know Nothings". It has to do with social structures.
And on a national level, part of that social structure, to bring this errant bullshit back to topic, is the firearm fetish. We get it from our history. Canada, having a different history, does not.
That's the difference between two cities a mile apart, with two different histories. Ain't got nothing to do with how Windsor rolled out the snowplows one day and Detroit didn't because "yow! There are Democrats!". Grow the **** up.
Thanks for the history lesson, Mr. Peabody. Now then, welcome to 2015. See anyone else whacking family members on a regular basis as part of their religion? No? Glad we have that settled.
Those goalposts ain't moving, douchelord, no matter HOW much you try to drag this argument out and hobble it with your incredible obtuseness (I'm still wondering why leftists think "I'm ******* stupid! I don't understand!" is a clever argument). To recap, for the sake of your mayfly attention span and memory:
You: Religion has nothing to do with a family business dispute (not really sure where that "business" part came into it). Religion is irrelevant to the story.
And we have now established that, in fact, religion can have a greal deal to do with family disputes that end in dead family members, if the religion in question is Islam, the world's current leader in religious killings of relatives. Which would make establishing whether or not this family was, in fact, Muslim a point of at least passing interest to the Phoenix police.
Thank you for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you, including a year's supply of Piss off, loser.
If this is your reaction when you get your sorry ass schooled, it's no wonder you carry the reputation you do.
Like it or lump it, I'm right, you're wrong, you fucked up, I win, etc etc. I don't pull this shit out of my ass; anthropology was my major. So thanks for the cum hoc demo but your house of cards has tumbled. Get over your juvenile butthurt and pick 'em up.
The fact remains, (1) "honor killings" have nothing to do with religion; (2) there's no evidence "honor killing" was involved here; (3) it has no particular history in Morocco; (4) there's no indication that religion played any part at all --- there's no indication that the family even practiced a religion.
Fallacy all you like but it makes no point. It just makes you a wanker.
"Get my sorry ass schooled"? In what? How delusional you become without proper medication and supervision? That didn't require anything more than simple observation.
Like it or lump it, you babbled. You fucked up. Only in Leftist Lalaland is that "winning".
I'll give you credit for one thing. You don't pull shit out of your ass. You just open your mouth and let it fall out. There is nothing about "anthropology major" - even assuming I believed you, or gave a **** - that erases the fact that "Look what happened centuries ago" is utterly irrelevant to the topic. So thanks for the obfuscation, but someone clearly stole your deck of cards before you even got started building.
The facts remain (because intelligent people at least know that listing more than one requires the plural, dumbass):
1) Honor killings among Muslim people are all about religion, because everything in their lives is about religion.
2) There's no evidence currently made public regarding WHAT these killings were about, one way or another, your willingness to ignore lines of questioning notwithstanding.
3) It had no history in a lot of places, until they acquired large populations of radical Muslims.
4) There's no indication that religion DIDN'T play any part at all, and thankfully, the police in my state aren't as emotionally invested in being obtuse dunces for an agenda as you are. In Arizona, we still believe in "investigate the crime to find out what happened", rather than "decide what explanations we like, and ignore everything that doesn't lead there".
Bullshit all you like. It just makes you . . . you.
Horseshit. "Honor killings" have nothing to do with religion -- ANY religion. They're a cultural device about social status, and they always have been. People who happen to be Hindus do it; people who happen to be Christian do it; people who happen to be Muslim do it; people who happen to be irreligious do it. It's been going on for millennia, long before either Muhammad or Jesus were a twinkle in a centurion's eye.
That's historical anthropological fact, and there's nothing your pissant little Bigot Bucket Brigade can do to rewrite history. And yes, it sure the ****
DID have a long history before populations of Muslims, WAY before Islam even existed.
The notions of honour and shame and their use as justification for violence and killing is not unique to any one culture or religion.
45 Indeed, honour and honour-based violence are reflected in historical events in many countries, and in many works of literature.
For instance, duelling was a key practice through which claims of masculine honour were made, maintained and understood in Western societies.
46 In France, Le Cid told the story of a man insulted by a slap across the face, who asked his son to defend his honour in a duel. In Canada, duelling continued into the late 1800s.
47
In Britain, for example, the fifth wife of Henry VIII was beheaded based on allegations of adultery. In British literature, Shakespeare's Desdemona was killed over allegations of infidelity, and Romeo and Juliet tracked an ancient family feud over honour. King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table centred on notions of honour. The premise of the Three Musketeers was the King's guards avenging the betrayal of the king by Cardinal Richelieu.
Similar notions can be traced in Latin American societies. In Brazil and parts of Latin America, machismo is often described as a code of honour. In the early times of Peru, the laws of the Incas permitted husbands to starve their wives to death as punishment for committing an adulterous act. Aztec laws resulted in death by stoning or strangulation for female adultery during the early times of Mexico.
48
Several great wars started over honour. Likely the clearest of these was the Trojan War, which began over the honour of Helen. Her father required that all her suitors defend his choice for her marriage, thereby setting all of Greece against Troy.
In Ancient Roman times, the senior male within a household retained the right to kill a related woman if she was engaged in pre-marital or extra-marital relations.
49 According to Blackstone, the Roman law justified homicide "when committed in defence of the chastity either of oneself or relations".
50
...
In many Arab countries, the practice of honour killing dates back to pre-Islamic times when Arab settlers occupied a region adjacent to Sindh, known as Baluchistan (in Pakistan).
57 These Arab settlers had patriarchal traditions such as live burials of newly born daughters.
Such traditions trace back to the earliest historic times of Ancient Babylon, where the predominant view was that a woman's virginity belonged to her family.58
There is no mention of honour killing in the Quran or Hadiths. Honour killing, in Islamic definitions, refers specifically to extra-legal punishment by the family against a woman, and is forbidden by the Sharia (Islamic law). Religious authorities disagree with extra punishments such as honour killing and prohibit it, so the practice of it is a cultural and not a religious issue. However, since Islam has influence over vast numbers of Muslims in many countries and from many cultures, some use Islam to justify honour killing even though there is no support for honour killing in Islam. ---
Historical Context: Origins of Honor Killing
And if you're scoring at home (or more likely, alone), Baluchistan is over
four thousand miles from Morocco... Phoenix is closer than that to Reykjavik Iceland...
So you're absolutely full of shit here. Even more than usual. Speaking of which, about your aptly numbered point number two, the stories have already told us the background of the confrontation: one guy with an attitude about how the business should be run. That has nothing to do with "honor" OR religion. Try reading your own links. And again, you don't commit an act to uphold family honor --- BY KILLING THE FAMILY.
Oh the moronity....
Your base problem is further up the proctological pipeline, that is you don't seem to understand the nature of existence. As you note above there's no indication of any connection to either "honor killing"
OR religion -- of any kind -- in this event.
BOTH of those ideas were pulled out of Pismoe's ass, in their entirety, out of nothing. Literally nothing. That doesn't make it a working theory to "disprove" -- it makes it the same bullshit it was when it came out the poop chute. It ain't in any universe my job to disprove a bullshit theory extricated from the wrong end of the gullet. It's the asserter's job to make the case. If this is your case, it went down in flames before it started,
in flagrante delicto.
Now there's a new plan.
