The 20-year-old woman drowned after her father stopped lifeguards saving her at a beach in Dubai as

[Roudy]

Regardless of the UAE being under Sharia Law, the father could have been arrested because he was interfering with letting the lifeguards doing their duty, which means they wouldn't care if he was a Muslim or not. The father is described as an ex-pat, which means he is working there and is not a tourist.

The article does not say anyting about "ex-pat" or "working there" or "not a tourist". It only describes "an Asian man" and his family. I checked all the way back to the original, which is nineteen years old. You should read your own links.

The point of the UAE being under Islamic law has nothing to do with "caring whether he's a Muslim" or not. It has nothing to do with the man at all. The point was Roudy came in here trying to establish Islam as a causation of HBV. Therefore, if it is what he says it is, an Islamic law government would have no problem with what the man did. After all it would be "Islamic" in his perverse fantasy.

But it isn't. These are ancient cultural -- not religious, cultural -- social structure practices that predate Islam and the rest of the modern monotheistic religions by thousands of years. They have nothing to do with religion. That's why I challenged him to explain the contradiction. He can't do it. He runs away because he's too obtuse to admit he was wrong.

Have you ever thought, Pogo, that there are other articles besides this one which described the man as an ex-pat. Don't you think that ex-pats working there take their families on picnics like this one did? There was an incident just the other week on the boardwalk at Venice Beach. There was a lifeguard on a tower on the boardwalk who told three people to stop smoking. They started up with the lifeguard and were arrested.

I already searched those articles. Found nothing like that.
But it did occur to me that if some such actually exists, it could be linked. Funny it doesn't seem to show up.

Keep on looking. I wouldn't have called him an ex-pat if I didn't read it. Regardless, does it matter what he was -- a tourist or an ex-pat -- when he interfered with the lifeguards doing their duty.

I have no reason to "keep on looking" -- it's not my claim. When I make one -- I back it up.

No it really doesn't matter. What I attacked was Roudy's cum hoc fallacy. Where the guy's from has no bearing on that.

Pogo's lips keep moving but all I hear is blah blah blah. Meanwhile, here's some of that inconvenient truth he keeps avoiding with his diversions and blabber:

Worldwide Trends in Honor Killings


Although Sikhs and Hindus do sometimes commit such murders, honor killings, both worldwide and in the West, are mainly Muslim-on-Muslim crimes. In this study, worldwide, 91 percent of perpetrators were Muslims. In North America, most killers (84 percent) were Muslims, with only a few Sikhs and even fewer Hindus perpetrating honor killings; in Europe, Muslims comprised an even larger majority at 96 percent while Sikhs were a tiny percentage. In Muslim countries, obviously almost all the perpetrators were Muslims. With only two exceptions, the victims were all members of the same religious group as their murderers.

 

[Roudy]

The article does not say anyting about "ex-pat" or "working there" or "not a tourist". It only describes "an Asian man" and his family. I checked all the way back to the original, which is nineteen years old. You should read your own links.

The point of the UAE being under Islamic law has nothing to do with "caring whether he's a Muslim" or not. It has nothing to do with the man at all. The point was Roudy came in here trying to establish Islam as a causation of HBV. Therefore, if it is what he says it is, an Islamic law government would have no problem with what the man did. After all it would be "Islamic" in his perverse fantasy.

But it isn't. These are ancient cultural -- not religious, cultural -- social structure practices that predate Islam and the rest of the modern monotheistic religions by thousands of years. They have nothing to do with religion. That's why I challenged him to explain the contradiction. He can't do it. He runs away because he's too obtuse to admit he was wrong.

Have you ever thought, Pogo, that there are other articles besides this one which described the man as an ex-pat. Don't you think that ex-pats working there take their families on picnics like this one did? There was an incident just the other week on the boardwalk at Venice Beach. There was a lifeguard on a tower on the boardwalk who told three people to stop smoking. They started up with the lifeguard and were arrested.

I already searched those articles. Found nothing like that.
But it did occur to me that if some such actually exists, it could be linked. Funny it doesn't seem to show up.

Keep on looking. I wouldn't have called him an ex-pat if I didn't read it. Regardless, does it matter what he was -- a tourist or an ex-pat -- when he interfered with the lifeguards doing their duty.

I have no reason to "keep on looking" -- it's not my claim. When I make one -- I back it up.

No it really doesn't matter. What I attacked was Roudy's cum hoc fallacy. Where the guy's from has no bearing on that.

Do you have anything else to contribute to this Middle East forum besides trying to win an argument?

He tries very hard, but unable to accomplish that.

 

[featherlite]

I just wanted to see if there was more to this story and clicked on the redirect button.
I'm sure other cultures ect have practiced this sort of thing, I don't know much about it. All it said was the guy was Asian. On the surface it sounds mighty Muslim

Too bad there wasn't a couple extra life guards on hand. Two to save the girl and 2 to restrain the father. lol

Then they could work out this honor thing, if not, at least her life was spared and he can work out this self serving "honor" thing on his own.

 

[Pogo]

The article does not say anyting about "ex-pat" or "working there" or "not a tourist". It only describes "an Asian man" and his family. I checked all the way back to the original, which is nineteen years old. You should read your own links.

The point of the UAE being under Islamic law has nothing to do with "caring whether he's a Muslim" or not. It has nothing to do with the man at all. The point was Roudy came in here trying to establish Islam as a causation of HBV. Therefore, if it is what he says it is, an Islamic law government would have no problem with what the man did. After all it would be "Islamic" in his perverse fantasy.

But it isn't. These are ancient cultural -- not religious, cultural -- social structure practices that predate Islam and the rest of the modern monotheistic religions by thousands of years. They have nothing to do with religion. That's why I challenged him to explain the contradiction. He can't do it. He runs away because he's too obtuse to admit he was wrong.

Have you ever thought, Pogo, that there are other articles besides this one which described the man as an ex-pat. Don't you think that ex-pats working there take their families on picnics like this one did? There was an incident just the other week on the boardwalk at Venice Beach. There was a lifeguard on a tower on the boardwalk who told three people to stop smoking. They started up with the lifeguard and were arrested.

I already searched those articles. Found nothing like that.
But it did occur to me that if some such actually exists, it could be linked. Funny it doesn't seem to show up.

Keep on looking. I wouldn't have called him an ex-pat if I didn't read it. Regardless, does it matter what he was -- a tourist or an ex-pat -- when he interfered with the lifeguards doing their duty.

I have no reason to "keep on looking" -- it's not my claim. When I make one -- I back it up.

No it really doesn't matter. What I attacked was Roudy's cum hoc fallacy. Where the guy's from has no bearing on that.

Pogo's lips keep moving but all I hear is blah blah blah. Meanwhile, here's some of that inconvenient truth he keeps avoiding with his diversions and blabber:

Worldwide Trends in Honor Killings


Although Sikhs and Hindus do sometimes commit such murders, honor killings, both worldwide and in the West, are mainly Muslim-on-Muslim crimes. In this study, worldwide, 91 percent of perpetrators were Muslims. In North America, most killers (84 percent) were Muslims, with only a few Sikhs and even fewer Hindus perpetrating honor killings; in Europe, Muslims comprised an even larger majority at 96 percent while Sikhs were a tiny percentage. In Muslim countries, obviously almost all the perpetrators were Muslims. With only two exceptions, the victims were all members of the same religious group as their murderers.

Jeepers! I bet they all had limbs too!

 

[Pogo]

I just wanted to see if there was more to this story and clicked on the redirect button.
I'm sure other cultures ect have practiced this sort of thing, I don't know much about it. All it said was the guy was Asian. On the surface it sounds mighty Muslim

There's nothing "Muslim" about it. Just as there's nothing "Chistian" or "Jewish" or "Sikhish" or "Hindu" about it, yet as we've repeatedly shown, honor-based violence comes from adherents of all of these and many more. None of them prescribe it, ALL of them prohibit it The poster's locked himself into a post hoc ergo propter hoc and he's gonna hold his rhetorical breath on it until he turns blue. We've challenged him over and over to show a causality and he can't do it, just digs himself even deeper. It's what happens when attracting attention to yourself is more important than dealing in realities.

IToo bad there wasn't a couple extra life guards on hand. Two to save the girl and 2 to restrain the father. lol

Then they could work out this honor thing, if not, at least her life was spared and he can work out this self serving "honor" thing on his own.

Yeah but that shouldn't be necessary. As we said from the beginning, these backward vestiges of patriarchal nomadic primitivia simply need to vanish.

What perpetuates it is ignorance ---- like the shit Roudy keeps dumping in this thread like so many turds.

What gets rid of it is education. And that's why I'm here.

 

[Pogo]

I already searched those articles. Found nothing like that.
But it did occur to me that if some such actually exists, it could be linked. Funny it doesn't seem to show up.

Keep on looking. I wouldn't have called him an ex-pat if I didn't read it. Regardless, does it matter what he was -- a tourist or an ex-pat -- when he interfered with the lifeguards doing their duty.

I have no reason to "keep on looking" -- it's not my claim. When I make one -- I back it up.

No it really doesn't matter. What I attacked was Roudy's cum hoc fallacy. Where the guy's from has no bearing on that.

Do you have anything else to contribute to this Middle East forum besides trying to win an argument?

What the fuck, I've contributed several dozen links already to put down the Ignorami. Done it before too, which is the weird part.

What the hell kind of "contribution" is a blatant cum hoc fallacy?

Maybe I should go dig up a story from 1996 and claim "I read somewhere" more about it than there is.

Calm down, Pogo. You are stressing yourself over this. Is it really that important to you? I meant do you have anything else to contribute to this forum. Maybe you can tell us about the Dubai nightlife. Surely you must like a good time.

On what planet is bling pig-ignorance more important than bullshit?

Clearly it's time to go back to the Asimov sigline. I'll never understand this infatuation y'all have with easily disprovable bullshit ignorance.

 

[Pogo]

I already searched those articles. Found nothing like that.
But it did occur to me that if some such actually exists, it could be linked. Funny it doesn't seem to show up.

Keep on looking. I wouldn't have called him an ex-pat if I didn't read it. Regardless, does it matter what he was -- a tourist or an ex-pat -- when he interfered with the lifeguards doing their duty.

I have no reason to "keep on looking" -- it's not my claim. When I make one -- I back it up.

No it really doesn't matter. What I attacked was Roudy's cum hoc fallacy. Where the guy's from has no bearing on that.

Do you have anything else to contribute to this Middle East forum besides trying to win an argument?

What the fuck, I've contributed several dozen links already to put down the Ignorami. Done it before too, which is the weird part.

What the hell kind of "contribution" is a blatant cum hoc fallacy?

Maybe I should go dig up a story from 1996 and claim "I read somewhere" more about it than there is.

You've contributed jackshit but apologize, justify, and whitewash the barbaric way that Muslim women are treated in Muslim societies. You've brought up an English king from 500 years ago, and some meaningless biblical verses and compared THAT, to Muslim behavior towards women, TODAY. You liberal whack jobs are sooo pro women's rights, aren't you? Ha ha ha.

I made no such "comparisons", lying HACK. The fact that you're too illiterate to read is your issue, not mine.

You're the same black hole that came up with "medieval" where none existed, just as you came up with "Muslim" where none existed:

Islam, where brain cells go to die.

The facts are these:

• NOWHERE in the story, or any reporting thereof, all the way back to the original from 1996, is the religion of anyone identified --- or even whether he had one;

• NOWHERE in Islam, or any other religion, is honor-based violence prescribed;

• NOWHERE in this thread, or any previous on the topic, have you presented a causal religious basis. Nor have historians or anthropologists. Yet those same scholars have already refuted your cum hoc, identifying tribal cultural patterns going back some eight thousand years, long before any such religion developed;

• NOWHERE in this thread have you yet explained why the police force of a government using Islamic law, would be arresting and prosecuting behaviour you keep claiming --- still without a basis --- to be "Islamic". You've contradicted your own premise and completely FAILED to explain it.

You're completely full of shit.

 

[Roudy]

Keep on looking. I wouldn't have called him an ex-pat if I didn't read it. Regardless, does it matter what he was -- a tourist or an ex-pat -- when he interfered with the lifeguards doing their duty.

I have no reason to "keep on looking" -- it's not my claim. When I make one -- I back it up.

No it really doesn't matter. What I attacked was Roudy's cum hoc fallacy. Where the guy's from has no bearing on that.

Do you have anything else to contribute to this Middle East forum besides trying to win an argument?

What the fuck, I've contributed several dozen links already to put down the Ignorami. Done it before too, which is the weird part.

What the hell kind of "contribution" is a blatant cum hoc fallacy?

Maybe I should go dig up a story from 1996 and claim "I read somewhere" more about it than there is.

You've contributed jackshit but apologize, justify, and whitewash the barbaric way that Muslim women are treated in Muslim societies. You've brought up an English king from 500 years ago, and some meaningless biblical verses and compared THAT, to Muslim behavior towards women, TODAY. You liberal whack jobs are sooo pro women's rights, aren't you? Ha ha ha.

I made no such "comparisons", lying HACK. The fact that you're too illiterate to read is your issue, not mine.

You're the same black hole that came up with "medieval" where none existed, just as you came up with "Muslim" where none existed:

Islam, where brain cells go to die.

The facts are these:

• NOWHERE in the story, or any reporting thereof, all the way back to the original from 1996, is the religion of anyone identified --- or even whether he had one;

• NOWHERE in Islam, or any other religion, is honor-based violence prescribed;

• NOWHERE in this thread, or any previous on the topic, have you presented a causal religious basis. Nor have historians or anthropologists. Yet those same scholars have already refuted your cum hoc, identifying tribal cultural patterns going back some eight thousand years, long before any such religion developed;

• NOWHERE in this thread have you yet explained why the police force of a government using Islamic law, would be arresting and prosecuting behaviour you keep claiming --- still without a basis --- to be "Islamic". You've contradicted your own premise and completely FAILED to explain it.

You're completely full of shit.

Your lips keep moving but all I hear is blah blah blah.

There is a record in this thread of what you posted, so simply saying you didn't didn't say certain things doesn't mean jack shit.

You compared a medieval king to what Muslims are doing today.

You cited verses in the Bible to what Muslims are doing today.

You stated like an ignorant buffoon that "Asian" means the guy wasn't a Muslim when it's obvious that he was.

Keep digging.

 

[Roudy]

Have you ever thought, Pogo, that there are other articles besides this one which described the man as an ex-pat. Don't you think that ex-pats working there take their families on picnics like this one did? There was an incident just the other week on the boardwalk at Venice Beach. There was a lifeguard on a tower on the boardwalk who told three people to stop smoking. They started up with the lifeguard and were arrested.

I already searched those articles. Found nothing like that.
But it did occur to me that if some such actually exists, it could be linked. Funny it doesn't seem to show up.

Keep on looking. I wouldn't have called him an ex-pat if I didn't read it. Regardless, does it matter what he was -- a tourist or an ex-pat -- when he interfered with the lifeguards doing their duty.

I have no reason to "keep on looking" -- it's not my claim. When I make one -- I back it up.

No it really doesn't matter. What I attacked was Roudy's cum hoc fallacy. Where the guy's from has no bearing on that.

Pogo's lips keep moving but all I hear is blah blah blah. Meanwhile, here's some of that inconvenient truth he keeps avoiding with his diversions and blabber:

Worldwide Trends in Honor Killings


Although Sikhs and Hindus do sometimes commit such murders, honor killings, both worldwide and in the West, are mainly Muslim-on-Muslim crimes. In this study, worldwide, 91 percent of perpetrators were Muslims. In North America, most killers (84 percent) were Muslims, with only a few Sikhs and even fewer Hindus perpetrating honor killings; in Europe, Muslims comprised an even larger majority at 96 percent while Sikhs were a tiny percentage. In Muslim countries, obviously almost all the perpetrators were Muslims. With only two exceptions, the victims were all members of the same religious group as their murderers.

Jeepers! I bet they all had limbs too!

91% of honor killings are done by Muslims. Case closed, you left wing whack job.

 

[Pogo]

I already searched those articles. Found nothing like that.
But it did occur to me that if some such actually exists, it could be linked. Funny it doesn't seem to show up.

Keep on looking. I wouldn't have called him an ex-pat if I didn't read it. Regardless, does it matter what he was -- a tourist or an ex-pat -- when he interfered with the lifeguards doing their duty.

I have no reason to "keep on looking" -- it's not my claim. When I make one -- I back it up.

No it really doesn't matter. What I attacked was Roudy's cum hoc fallacy. Where the guy's from has no bearing on that.

Pogo's lips keep moving but all I hear is blah blah blah. Meanwhile, here's some of that inconvenient truth he keeps avoiding with his diversions and blabber:

Worldwide Trends in Honor Killings


Although Sikhs and Hindus do sometimes commit such murders, honor killings, both worldwide and in the West, are mainly Muslim-on-Muslim crimes. In this study, worldwide, 91 percent of perpetrators were Muslims. In North America, most killers (84 percent) were Muslims, with only a few Sikhs and even fewer Hindus perpetrating honor killings; in Europe, Muslims comprised an even larger majority at 96 percent while Sikhs were a tiny percentage. In Muslim countries, obviously almost all the perpetrators were Muslims. With only two exceptions, the victims were all members of the same religious group as their murderers.

Jeepers! I bet they all had limbs too!

91% of honor killings are done by Muslims. Case closed, you left wing whack job.

Link?

Oh, this is gonna be good....

 

[Pogo]

I have no reason to "keep on looking" -- it's not my claim. When I make one -- I back it up.

No it really doesn't matter. What I attacked was Roudy's cum hoc fallacy. Where the guy's from has no bearing on that.

Do you have anything else to contribute to this Middle East forum besides trying to win an argument?

What the fuck, I've contributed several dozen links already to put down the Ignorami. Done it before too, which is the weird part.

What the hell kind of "contribution" is a blatant cum hoc fallacy?

Maybe I should go dig up a story from 1996 and claim "I read somewhere" more about it than there is.

You've contributed jackshit but apologize, justify, and whitewash the barbaric way that Muslim women are treated in Muslim societies. You've brought up an English king from 500 years ago, and some meaningless biblical verses and compared THAT, to Muslim behavior towards women, TODAY. You liberal whack jobs are sooo pro women's rights, aren't you? Ha ha ha.

I made no such "comparisons", lying HACK. The fact that you're too illiterate to read is your issue, not mine.

You're the same black hole that came up with "medieval" where none existed, just as you came up with "Muslim" where none existed:

Islam, where brain cells go to die.

The facts are these:

• NOWHERE in the story, or any reporting thereof, all the way back to the original from 1996, is the religion of anyone identified --- or even whether he had one;

• NOWHERE in Islam, or any other religion, is honor-based violence prescribed;

• NOWHERE in this thread, or any previous on the topic, have you presented a causal religious basis. Nor have historians or anthropologists. Yet those same scholars have already refuted your cum hoc, identifying tribal cultural patterns going back some eight thousand years, long before any such religion developed;

• NOWHERE in this thread have you yet explained why the police force of a government using Islamic law, would be arresting and prosecuting behaviour you keep claiming --- still without a basis --- to be "Islamic". You've contradicted your own premise and completely FAILED to explain it.

You're completely full of shit.

Your lips keep moving but all I hear is blah blah blah.

No shit. That's all you've EVER heard. Here's why:

There is a record in this thread of what you posted, so simply saying you didn't didn't say certain things doesn't mean jack shit.

There is indeed. And you're making these bogus claims, ergo the burden of proof is on you -- not me.

You compared a medieval king to what Muslims are doing today.

Did I.

Link?

You cited verses in the Bible to what Muslims are doing today.

That doesn't even make grammatical sense but I made no such conflation.

Again, if it existed you could link it. And since it doesn't --- you can't .

You stated like an ignorant buffoon that "Asian" means the guy wasn't a Muslim when it's obvious that he was.

Did I.

Link?


Again, it seems you have yet to learn the simple difference between realities that exist in the real world and bullshit you pull out of your own ass.

 

[Pogo]

I already searched those articles. Found nothing like that.
But it did occur to me that if some such actually exists, it could be linked. Funny it doesn't seem to show up.

Keep on looking. I wouldn't have called him an ex-pat if I didn't read it. Regardless, does it matter what he was -- a tourist or an ex-pat -- when he interfered with the lifeguards doing their duty.

I have no reason to "keep on looking" -- it's not my claim. When I make one -- I back it up.

No it really doesn't matter. What I attacked was Roudy's cum hoc fallacy. Where the guy's from has no bearing on that.

Pogo's lips keep moving but all I hear is blah blah blah. Meanwhile, here's some of that inconvenient truth he keeps avoiding with his diversions and blabber:

Worldwide Trends in Honor Killings


Although Sikhs and Hindus do sometimes commit such murders, honor killings, both worldwide and in the West, are mainly Muslim-on-Muslim crimes. In this study, worldwide, 91 percent of perpetrators were Muslims. In North America, most killers (84 percent) were Muslims, with only a few Sikhs and even fewer Hindus perpetrating honor killings; in Europe, Muslims comprised an even larger majority at 96 percent while Sikhs were a tiny percentage. In Muslim countries, obviously almost all the perpetrators were Muslims. With only two exceptions, the victims were all members of the same religious group as their murderers.

Jeepers! I bet they all had limbs too!

91% of honor killings are done by Muslims. Case closed, you left wing whack job.

---------------- Link??

Oh this is gonna be great....

 

[Roudy]

Keep on looking. I wouldn't have called him an ex-pat if I didn't read it. Regardless, does it matter what he was -- a tourist or an ex-pat -- when he interfered with the lifeguards doing their duty.

I have no reason to "keep on looking" -- it's not my claim. When I make one -- I back it up.

No it really doesn't matter. What I attacked was Roudy's cum hoc fallacy. Where the guy's from has no bearing on that.

Pogo's lips keep moving but all I hear is blah blah blah. Meanwhile, here's some of that inconvenient truth he keeps avoiding with his diversions and blabber:

Worldwide Trends in Honor Killings


Although Sikhs and Hindus do sometimes commit such murders, honor killings, both worldwide and in the West, are mainly Muslim-on-Muslim crimes. In this study, worldwide, 91 percent of perpetrators were Muslims. In North America, most killers (84 percent) were Muslims, with only a few Sikhs and even fewer Hindus perpetrating honor killings; in Europe, Muslims comprised an even larger majority at 96 percent while Sikhs were a tiny percentage. In Muslim countries, obviously almost all the perpetrators were Muslims. With only two exceptions, the victims were all members of the same religious group as their murderers.

Jeepers! I bet they all had limbs too!

91% of honor killings are done by Muslims. Case closed, you left wing whack job.

Link?

Oh, this is gonna be good....

It's in the article you responded to, retard.

 

[Roudy]

Do you have anything else to contribute to this Middle East forum besides trying to win an argument?

What the fuck, I've contributed several dozen links already to put down the Ignorami. Done it before too, which is the weird part.

What the hell kind of "contribution" is a blatant cum hoc fallacy?

Maybe I should go dig up a story from 1996 and claim "I read somewhere" more about it than there is.

You've contributed jackshit but apologize, justify, and whitewash the barbaric way that Muslim women are treated in Muslim societies. You've brought up an English king from 500 years ago, and some meaningless biblical verses and compared THAT, to Muslim behavior towards women, TODAY. You liberal whack jobs are sooo pro women's rights, aren't you? Ha ha ha.

I made no such "comparisons", lying HACK. The fact that you're too illiterate to read is your issue, not mine.

You're the same black hole that came up with "medieval" where none existed, just as you came up with "Muslim" where none existed:

Islam, where brain cells go to die.

The facts are these:

• NOWHERE in the story, or any reporting thereof, all the way back to the original from 1996, is the religion of anyone identified --- or even whether he had one;

• NOWHERE in Islam, or any other religion, is honor-based violence prescribed;

• NOWHERE in this thread, or any previous on the topic, have you presented a causal religious basis. Nor have historians or anthropologists. Yet those same scholars have already refuted your cum hoc, identifying tribal cultural patterns going back some eight thousand years, long before any such religion developed;

• NOWHERE in this thread have you yet explained why the police force of a government using Islamic law, would be arresting and prosecuting behaviour you keep claiming --- still without a basis --- to be "Islamic". You've contradicted your own premise and completely FAILED to explain it.

You're completely full of shit.

Your lips keep moving but all I hear is blah blah blah.

No shit. That's all you've EVER heard. Here's why:

There is a record in this thread of what you posted, so simply saying you didn't didn't say certain things doesn't mean jack shit.

There is indeed. And you're making these bogus claims, ergo the burden of proof is on you -- not me.

You compared a medieval king to what Muslims are doing today.

Did I.

Link?

You cited verses in the Bible to what Muslims are doing today.

That doesn't even make grammatical sense but I made no such conflation.

Again, if it existed you could link it. And you can't .

You stated like an ignorant buffoon that "Asian" means the guy wasn't a Muslim when it's obvious that he was.

Did I.

Link?


Again, it seems you have yet to learn the simple difference between realities that exist in the real world and bullshit you pull out of your own ass.

Stop asking for links and go back and look at your posts, idiot.

 

[Pogo]

What the fuck, I've contributed several dozen links already to put down the Ignorami. Done it before too, which is the weird part.

What the hell kind of "contribution" is a blatant cum hoc fallacy?

Maybe I should go dig up a story from 1996 and claim "I read somewhere" more about it than there is.

You've contributed jackshit but apologize, justify, and whitewash the barbaric way that Muslim women are treated in Muslim societies. You've brought up an English king from 500 years ago, and some meaningless biblical verses and compared THAT, to Muslim behavior towards women, TODAY. You liberal whack jobs are sooo pro women's rights, aren't you? Ha ha ha.

I made no such "comparisons", lying HACK. The fact that you're too illiterate to read is your issue, not mine.

You're the same black hole that came up with "medieval" where none existed, just as you came up with "Muslim" where none existed:

Islam, where brain cells go to die.

The facts are these:

• NOWHERE in the story, or any reporting thereof, all the way back to the original from 1996, is the religion of anyone identified --- or even whether he had one;

• NOWHERE in Islam, or any other religion, is honor-based violence prescribed;

• NOWHERE in this thread, or any previous on the topic, have you presented a causal religious basis. Nor have historians or anthropologists. Yet those same scholars have already refuted your cum hoc, identifying tribal cultural patterns going back some eight thousand years, long before any such religion developed;

• NOWHERE in this thread have you yet explained why the police force of a government using Islamic law, would be arresting and prosecuting behaviour you keep claiming --- still without a basis --- to be "Islamic". You've contradicted your own premise and completely FAILED to explain it.

You're completely full of shit.

Your lips keep moving but all I hear is blah blah blah.

No shit. That's all you've EVER heard. Here's why:

There is a record in this thread of what you posted, so simply saying you didn't didn't say certain things doesn't mean jack shit.

There is indeed. And you're making these bogus claims, ergo the burden of proof is on you -- not me.

You compared a medieval king to what Muslims are doing today.

Did I.

Link?

You cited verses in the Bible to what Muslims are doing today.

That doesn't even make grammatical sense but I made no such conflation.

Again, if it existed you could link it. And you can't .

You stated like an ignorant buffoon that "Asian" means the guy wasn't a Muslim when it's obvious that he was.

Did I.

Link?


Again, it seems you have yet to learn the simple difference between realities that exist in the real world and bullshit you pull out of your own ass.

Stop asking for links and go back and look at your posts, idiot.

So you can't do it.

Yeah -- no shit. Fucking loser.

 

[Pogo]

What the fuck, I've contributed several dozen links already to put down the Ignorami. Done it before too, which is the weird part.

What the hell kind of "contribution" is a blatant cum hoc fallacy?

Maybe I should go dig up a story from 1996 and claim "I read somewhere" more about it than there is.

You've contributed jackshit but apologize, justify, and whitewash the barbaric way that Muslim women are treated in Muslim societies. You've brought up an English king from 500 years ago, and some meaningless biblical verses and compared THAT, to Muslim behavior towards women, TODAY. You liberal whack jobs are sooo pro women's rights, aren't you? Ha ha ha.

I made no such "comparisons", lying HACK. The fact that you're too illiterate to read is your issue, not mine.

You're the same black hole that came up with "medieval" where none existed, just as you came up with "Muslim" where none existed:

Islam, where brain cells go to die.

The facts are these:

• NOWHERE in the story, or any reporting thereof, all the way back to the original from 1996, is the religion of anyone identified --- or even whether he had one;

• NOWHERE in Islam, or any other religion, is honor-based violence prescribed;

• NOWHERE in this thread, or any previous on the topic, have you presented a causal religious basis. Nor have historians or anthropologists. Yet those same scholars have already refuted your cum hoc, identifying tribal cultural patterns going back some eight thousand years, long before any such religion developed;

• NOWHERE in this thread have you yet explained why the police force of a government using Islamic law, would be arresting and prosecuting behaviour you keep claiming --- still without a basis --- to be "Islamic". You've contradicted your own premise and completely FAILED to explain it.

You're completely full of shit.

Your lips keep moving but all I hear is blah blah blah.

No shit. That's all you've EVER heard. Here's why:

There is a record in this thread of what you posted, so simply saying you didn't didn't say certain things doesn't mean jack shit.

There is indeed. And you're making these bogus claims, ergo the burden of proof is on you -- not me.

You compared a medieval king to what Muslims are doing today.

Did I.

Link?

You cited verses in the Bible to what Muslims are doing today.

That doesn't even make grammatical sense but I made no such conflation.

Again, if it existed you could link it. And you can't .

You stated like an ignorant buffoon that "Asian" means the guy wasn't a Muslim when it's obvious that he was.

Did I.

Link?


Again, it seems you have yet to learn the simple difference between realities that exist in the real world and bullshit you pull out of your own ass.

Stop asking for links and go back and look at your posts, idiot.

You're gonna hang your hat on Phyllis Chesler?

That very link quote Chesler, and I quote, "The number of honor killings is routinely underestimated, and most estimates are little more than guesses that vary widely. Definitive or reliable worldwide estimates of honor killing incidence do not exist."

Now how the fuck do you get a figure of "91%" out of "definitive numbers that do not exist"?

Your own link.

Chesler further notes:
"an honor killing reflects the culture's values aimed at regulating female behavior—values that the family, including the victim's family, is expected to enforce and uphold."

The culture's values. Not "the religion's values" -- the culture's values.
As I've been telling you all along while you go

Your own link.

 

[fanger]

Indonesian and Malaysians are considered Asian Muslims. In fact there are more Muslims in Malaysia than anywhere else in the world. There are also Muslim minorities all over Asian countries, you ignorant dipshit.

I'm still laughing at this post by Roudy

 

[Roudy]

You've contributed jackshit but apologize, justify, and whitewash the barbaric way that Muslim women are treated in Muslim societies. You've brought up an English king from 500 years ago, and some meaningless biblical verses and compared THAT, to Muslim behavior towards women, TODAY. You liberal whack jobs are sooo pro women's rights, aren't you? Ha ha ha.

I made no such "comparisons", lying HACK. The fact that you're too illiterate to read is your issue, not mine.

You're the same black hole that came up with "medieval" where none existed, just as you came up with "Muslim" where none existed:

Islam, where brain cells go to die.

The facts are these:

• NOWHERE in the story, or any reporting thereof, all the way back to the original from 1996, is the religion of anyone identified --- or even whether he had one;

• NOWHERE in Islam, or any other religion, is honor-based violence prescribed;

• NOWHERE in this thread, or any previous on the topic, have you presented a causal religious basis. Nor have historians or anthropologists. Yet those same scholars have already refuted your cum hoc, identifying tribal cultural patterns going back some eight thousand years, long before any such religion developed;

• NOWHERE in this thread have you yet explained why the police force of a government using Islamic law, would be arresting and prosecuting behaviour you keep claiming --- still without a basis --- to be "Islamic". You've contradicted your own premise and completely FAILED to explain it.

You're completely full of shit.

Your lips keep moving but all I hear is blah blah blah.

No shit. That's all you've EVER heard. Here's why:

There is a record in this thread of what you posted, so simply saying you didn't didn't say certain things doesn't mean jack shit.

There is indeed. And you're making these bogus claims, ergo the burden of proof is on you -- not me.

You compared a medieval king to what Muslims are doing today.

Did I.

Link?

You cited verses in the Bible to what Muslims are doing today.

That doesn't even make grammatical sense but I made no such conflation.

Again, if it existed you could link it. And you can't .

You stated like an ignorant buffoon that "Asian" means the guy wasn't a Muslim when it's obvious that he was.

Did I.

Link?


Again, it seems you have yet to learn the simple difference between realities that exist in the real world and bullshit you pull out of your own ass.

Stop asking for links and go back and look at your posts, idiot.

You're gonna hang your hat on Phyllis Chesler?

That very link quote Chesler, and I quote, "The number of honor killings is routinely underestimated, and most estimates are little more than guesses that vary widely. Definitive or reliable worldwide estimates of honor killing incidence do not exist."

Now how the fuck do you get a figure of "91%" out of that?

Your own link.

I'll take her research over a left wing whack job like you.

91% of honor killings are committed by Muslims.

Biography The Phyllis Chesler Organization

Phyllis Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology at City University of New York. She is a best-selling author, a legendary feminist leader, a retired psychotherapist and expert courtroom witness. She has lectured and organized political, legal, religious, and human rights campaigns in the United States, Canada, Europe, Israel, and the Far East. Her work has been translated into many European languages and into Japanese, Chinese, Korean, and Hebrew.

Dr. Chesler is a co-founder of the Association for Women in Psychology (1969), The National Women's Health Network (1974), and The International Committee for Women of the Wall (1989). She is a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at The Middle East Forum, and a fellow at the Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism and Policy (ISGAP).

 

[Roudy]

The ideas interview Phyllis Chesler World news The Guardian

 

[Pogo]

Numbers 2:

In 2000, the United Nations estimated that there are 5,000 honor killings every year.[1]

According to the National Crime Record Bureau, 8,093 dowry-related deaths were registered in India in 2007

That's just India. Where it has nothing to do with being Sikh or Hindu. And it's only dowry deaths, not HBV based on other criteria. Such as, say, caste mixing (and that's still just within India).

8093 / five thousand.
Oopsie. I smell cherries.