Thread: Man Beheads Wife in 'Honor' Killing

  1. #81
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Cellar_Door View Post
    Throwing acid in a young girl's face or chopping a woman's head off for something as trivial as refusing to wear a veil or perhaps marrying someone disproved of is, pretty much worldwide, regarded as sick and cruel. It's hardly Western oppression if someone argues that the person responsible for such vile acts is brought to justice. Do you feel that these crimes should not be punished?
    I think the notion of justice is very relative. More crimes are conducted by democracies in the name of justice today than are ever condoned by the forgiveness of some criminals by those most affected by their crimes.

    If a society believes that a justice system works for them, perhaps interference is not helpful. I'm not from a punishment/closure oriented culture, so the notion of must be punished is an alien one to me.

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    If a society believes that a justice system works for them, perhaps interference is not helpful.
    is that why you live in a western society, so you can exercise your sexual freedom without having to worry if your head will still be attached tomorrow?

  3. #83
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    is that why you live in a western society, so you can exercise your sexual freedom without having to worry if your head will still be attached tomorrow?
    I can do that in India too, but don't worry, I'm nice. I don't kill people even if I think they could use some improvements in their moral and social structure.


    I just nag the crap out of them.

  4. #84
    Bloodthirsty Barbarian
    Posts
    9,391
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    I think the notion of justice is very relative.
    So if my society decides that murdering you is just, you'd accept that, in order to avoid interfering with my society? Are there no bounds on the freedom of societies to define justice? And, if not, what basis is there for any of your criticisms of American/Western/whatever ideas about justice?

    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    More crimes are conducted by democracies in the name of justice today than are ever condoned by the forgiveness of some criminals by those most affected by their crimes.
    Those most affected by said crimes are dead. They cannot forgive anyone, and presumably would not wish to if they could.

    Allowing the perpetrators to speak for the victims is possibly the most blatant perversion of justice I can imagine.

    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    If a society believes that a justice system works for them, perhaps interference is not helpful.
    I have yet to hear any affirmation from the societies in question that they are satisfied with said practices or how they are handled by their respective justice systems. On the contrary, I get the distinct impression that they are highly dissatisfied with them. You don't speak for them, so your unsupported assertions have no weight.

    Not that it would matter: since the murdered girls and women (and the millions of others that are intimidated into silence by the acceptance of the practice) have no voice in the society when it comes to these matters, it follows that any societal affirmation of the justice system would be invalid in the first place.

    Not that any of this is relevant to someone coming to the United States and beheading his wife in the name of honor. Nobody is suggesting overthrowing Pakistan and changing their criminal code. We're talking about someone who came to the US from another society, presenting himself and his company as the face of American Muslims, and who went on to (publicly, brazenly) violate one of the most fundamental moral precepts of our society (and essentially every other society as well).

    The Islamic Society of North America has the decency and backbone to stand up against this murder, abuse and sexism. So it seems to me that all of the societies in question here are in agreement in condemning the crime and wanting to see the perpetrator tried in the existing American justice system. This is not an instance of the West imposing its own social norms on some foreign culture, but rather refusing to accept the importation of certain barbaric practices from foreign cultures.

    Your post-colonialist rhetoric is highly misplaced here, not least because it has you arguing that brutal oppression of women is indeed an acceptable, legitimate part of certain Muslim societies, and that this is not to be criticized. This not only reinforces perceptions of said societies as backwards and barbaric, but undermines your moral authority by showing you as an apologist for oppression. I thought you always support the underdog? Are women that can be publicly, brutally murdered, without any consequences, somehow not sufficiently marginalized and oppressed for you?

  5. #85
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Quote Originally Posted by quadraphonics View Post
    So if my society decides that murdering you is just, you'd accept that, in order to avoid interfering with my society? Are there no bounds on the freedom of societies to define justice? And, if not, what basis is there for any of your criticisms of American/Western/whatever ideas about justice?
    I think you need to brush up on your reading comprehesion skills. Unless you're insisting that Americans who kill around the world should be subject to the ICC. Well, according to Americans, thats only possible if they sign up for it, which is why they don't.

    I'm only reiterating the American notion of what constitutes justice. Are you saying Americans who do not want to be subject to universal justice, lack a backbone?

  6. #86
    had a mod but let him go spidergoat's Avatar
    Posts
    46,432
    This guy wouldn't be the first one to get mad about a divorce.

  7. #87
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    He turned himself in, too. So its obvious he doesn't consider himself free of blame.

    Its amazing what love and marriage can do to some people.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_passion

  8. #88
    Woo is resistant to reason PieAreSquared's Avatar
    Posts
    2,145
    Again, it's real simple. He knew she would get laid before he did... unless of course he went to a pro

  9. #89
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Quote Originally Posted by PieAreSquared View Post
    Again, it's real simple. He knew she would get laid before he did... unless of course he went to a pro
    After so many years, sex is the least of teh issues.

    He was probably a wife beater, so many of these self righteous prigs are crooked.

  10. #90
    Bloodthirsty Barbarian
    Posts
    9,391
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    I think you need to brush up on your reading comprehesion skills.
    No, you need to brush up on your reasoning and arguing skills.

    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    Unless you're insisting that Americans who kill around the world should be subject to the ICC.
    Nothing I've said has any bearing on the ICC, or American participation in it. I have not insisted that Pakistanis who kill around the world should be subject to the ICC either, or any other court system besides the one that governs the territory where the killing took place.

    I have suggested that there are serious flaws in the justice systems of societies that permit honor killings. I have not suggested any course of action for rectifying that.

    The idea that there are certain universally unacceptable crimes, which no society has the authority to allow, does not imply that a single world court system needs to be (or should be) employed, much less that any particular international court system is a good idea. After all, essentially every national justice system in the world already disallows honor killing. I just want the hold-outs to come out of the Dark Ages and fix their justice systems so they are no longer sick jokes.

    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    I'm only reiterating the American notion of what constitutes justice.
    You clearly have no idea what the American notion of justice is, and even if you did, you have no standing to speak for American society in the first place.

  11. #91
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    You clearly have no idea what the American notion of justice is, and even if you did, you have no standing to speak for American society in the first place.
    Ok, do you believe there should be a universal code of justice? Vote here

    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90817

  12. #92
    Woo is resistant to reason PieAreSquared's Avatar
    Posts
    2,145
    naw... he just didn't want to she her with that fresh laid look on her face.

    She was 37 .. her motor was still running... and quite cute

    while he looks like a tub of lard

  13. #93
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Quote Originally Posted by PieAreSquared View Post
    naw... he just didn't want to she her with that fresh laid look on her face.

    She was 37 .. her motor was still running... and quite cute

    while he looks like a tub of lard
    You have a cultural bias. By Pakistani terms he's a changa sona.

    Metrosexuals don't get much mileage in them thar mountains.

  14. #94
    Bloodthirsty Barbarian
    Posts
    9,391
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    universal code of justice
    Define "Universal Code of Justice."

    There has been a Universal Declaration of Human Rights for over 60 years, accepted by essentially every country in the world. Including many of the honor-killing states.

    It's not clear to me that it's possible to have a Universal Code of Justice that is enforced upon all states, without first having a unified world government.

  15. #95
    Woo is resistant to reason PieAreSquared's Avatar
    Posts
    2,145
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    You have a cultural bias. By Pakistani terms he's a changa sona.

    Metrosexuals don't get much mileage in them thar mountains.
    In the US .... she would be sexed before him... end of story

  16. #96
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Quote Originally Posted by PieAreSquared View Post
    In the US .... she would be sexed before him... end of story
    She was Pakistani too.

  17. #97
    Woo is resistant to reason PieAreSquared's Avatar
    Posts
    2,145
    and where were the two of them?

  18. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    Its upto the courts to decide on his crime. I don't think US courts follow Pakistani laws.
    So are honour killings permissable under Pakistani law?

  19. #99
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Quote Originally Posted by synthesizer-patel View Post
    So are honour killings permissable under Pakistani law?
    No, but Zia-ul-Haq instituted Hudud laws in the seventies, where he included the pardon/compensation/punishment clauses.

    But I am not aware of current legal statutes.

    Hmm, apparently, he also decided what the hudud laws were, so I have no idea what the statutes were at all

    After assuming power the task that the government set to was its public commitment to enforce Nizam-e-Mustafa (Islamic System) a 180 degree turn from Pakistan's predominantly Anglo-Saxon Law. As a preliminary measure to establish an Islamic society in Pakistan, General Zia announced the establishment of Sharia Benches. Speaking about the jurisdiction of the Sharia Benches, he said,

    Every citizen will have the right to present any law enforced by the government before the “Sharia Bench” and obtain its verdict whether the law is wholly or partly Islamic or un-Islamic.

    But General Zia did not mention that the Sharia Benches' jurisdiction was curtailed by the following overriding clause: “(Any) law does not include the constitution, Muslim personal law, any law relating to the procedure of any court or tribunal or, until the expiration of three years, any fiscal law, or any law relating to the collection of taxes and fees or insurance practice and procedure.” It meant that all important laws which affect each and every individual directly remained outside the purview of the Sharia Benches. However, he did not have a smooth sailing even with the clipped Sharia Benches. The Federal Sharia Bench declared rajm, or stoning, to be un-Islamic; Ziaul Haq reconstituted the court, which then declared rajm as Islamic.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zia-ul-...s_Islamization

  20. #100
    Woo is resistant to reason PieAreSquared's Avatar
    Posts
    2,145
    I mean talk about your total dumb fuck. Besides murdering his wife, and getting to look forward to bubba in prison .

    He has set back Muslim relations in the US back big time.

    No doubt he had a fat wallet and could of enjoyed himself big time

    Fucking religious idiot

Similar Threads

  1. By Asguard in forum Ethics, Morality, & Justice
    Last Post: 06-20-08, 01:14 AM
    Replies: 12
  2. By cosmictraveler in forum Computer Science & Culture
    Last Post: 05-14-08, 12:51 PM
    Replies: 2
  3. By Muslim in forum The Cesspool
    Last Post: 12-29-07, 11:51 PM
    Replies: 86
  4. By Baron Max in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 08-30-07, 06:10 AM
    Replies: 77

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •