Afghan Honor Killing in Germany

[Patsy Warnick]

Do I think one Family member killing another Family Member is worst than

stranger killing stranger ?? YES

How is this "HONOR" when the Family chose a Alley to kill ?

If this is to be noticed - then Red posted this article since they want to be noticed.

Hang 'em

Patsy

[K.Snyder]

spot;875886 wrote: Why is nobody prepared to justify the idea that murdering a family member is worse?


I don't think one can make that assessment without understanding the motives in each individual case...

Some could argue in that they done so because the murderer believed that in them committing the crime of murder would have been a reward to the victim and from a western society's perspective could have been equally looked upon as not as heinous...That is if there is such a thing...

[AussiePam]

Lunch break and I've popped by to see who's winning. Shall I repost an updated list for a vote, Jester? Yeah... why not!!




All Muslims are evil

All Muslims are wonderful

Some are, some aren't

Don't know

Don't care

Stop immigration

Outlaw all religion

OOOh a brawl - where's the popcorn

I can debate better than you

Whatever you say, I'm against it, you hateful person

I disagree with you but will kill for your right to say stupid things

Everyone but me is a fool, incapable of logical thought

This is all about me, isn't it?

Ban the French

It's all a conspiracy

Bring back the death penalty

Hands off my guns

Nuke the lot

Cream teas is the answer

Same old same old... boring

None of the above.

[spot]

Jester;875891 wrote: Poppycock!

Severeal here have already answered you, it doesnt matter, murder is murder, this particular murder lends itself to a type of murder based on culturally religious ideaology which happens ot be islam. Your just not williing to accept that Islam is at the root of this murder.

There is no 'worse' in murder, possibly more appauling to our experince, but murder is the worst it can get.

I'm starting to see Val's point of view Spot.
I wonder whether I could drop a URL into the thread to indicate what I'm reading when I get a spare half hour tomorrow.

www.socialcohesion.co.uk/pdf/CrimesOfTheCommunity.pdf

It looks informative, it's based on reports from workers in the field in the UK and the people they come into contact with. It concentrates on Muslim, Kurdish, Hindu and Sikh groups both inside and outside of the UK.

No, I'm not "williing to accept that Islam is at the root of this murder", I think it's societal. On the other hand I suspect I'm wrong about the Kenyan witch-burnings being encouraged by the local churches, there seems to be a significant layer of economic crime underlying that practice. It's definitely getting through a lot of witches though, of the order of a thousand a year just in that one country. I do think there's a church-based drive to equivalent murders in Nigeria but the numbers are far smaller. Both countries have a mixed Christian and Muslim population where friction is common.

I didn't know Val had a point of view beyond mere spite.

[AussiePam]

Very good extra point, Jester!!!! Well, time I was off... carry on, Folks!

:-6

[K.Snyder]

Jester;875912 wrote: If I belived the predominate groups of christians practiced murder i'd seperate myself from it and no longer call myself a chirstian.




This is what I find hard to believe...

I can't see how anyone could consider themselves of a religion whom have the ability to leave that religion based on what it is others do in the name of what would be coincidentally enough be the same religion...

I'm not trying to question your morale obligation, but as for myself I could never claim to be of a religion and be capable of leaving that religion...

Maybe you just worded it wrongly...

[spot]

Jester;875892 wrote: [quote=spot]Can we come back into the bounds of reality and note that a requirement of membership of the European Union is the abandonment of capital punishment, please? Both lynching and public executions are ideas whose time has ended.Well thats too bad, then you can get used to much more of this.[/QUOTE]On a point of information, the rate of murders (and the actual number of murders) in the European Union, which abandoned capital punishment a long time ago, is about a fifth of the rate of murders in the USA which has (I think, from memory) the second highest execution rate in the world. I don't see the logic of your point at all.

Your comment that "anyone can believe whatever they want, when they translate that into killing/harming the innocent it kinda SETS ME OFF! And I hold them all responsible both the individual and the collective group for settign in motion the idieology that allows it" resonates strongly with me, given the number of entirely innocent people whose deaths have resulted from your country's deployment into the Middle East and the utter lack of concern a large section of the US public has shown about it. For my entire lifetime the going rate for one US serviceman in their attacks on other countries has been around 40 dead enemy combatants - is that a reasonable estimate? - but that figure's only a tenth of the dead civilians which result from their deployment. This thread's niggling about toothache while ignoring dead bodies which stretch to the horizon, just so you can sit back and say "well, God sure handed out what they had coming to them". There's a mass US psychosis underlying this demonizing of Islam to justify grand international larceny.

[K.Snyder]

Jester;875919 wrote: Well, there is already a large number of poeple that in my opinon have taken the name 'christian' and turned it into something it was never supposed to be, if you looked at the mainlain protestant denominations they practice everything the non religious do and then act as though God sanctioned it.

Divorce, remarriage, use of alcohol, violence, anger, viweing ungodly movies and listening to music that is no different than the secular world. Homosexuality is a fringe norm in some mainline churches who call themsleves 'christians' in fact we even have 'gay clergy' in so called mainline christian churches.

Christians are to be called out and seperated form that, we are to be different, and when you take a hard look at the two groups there really isnt a difference, so either the non religious have become more like the chirstians or chirstians have become more liek the non religious, guess which one I think jumped ship?

I actually hold fast to the stricvter beliefs, I dont think divirce is right, remarriage is forbidden if in fact the only reason for divorce (adultry) is granted God never sanctioned remarriage. And I wont bother te mention more of the things Ive hashed out exceot to say that, I no longer call myself a 'christain' I'm a 'beliver' in God.

I seperate myself from mainline 'christinaity' because the mainline group isnt very truly 'christian' anymore, they dont follow the true teachings of christ closely enough to claim the title in my opinion.

Oh its not me who left my religion, its the majority who left my religion.


I understand...

So it's more like..."If I belived the predominate groups of christians practiced murder i'd seperate myself from it and no longer call myself one in the same as those Christians whom I find to be non true Christians"...

As opposed to the..."If I belived the predominate groups of christians practiced murder i'd seperate myself from it and no longer call myself a chirstian"

[K.Snyder]

Jester;875940 wrote: Well theres a difficult position to be in in the midst of that statement, I need to seperate myself from thier actions, but I am unable to determine for certain if they are not true belivers, one would hope that they eventually see the error of thier ways and come out and seperate themselves from those things that God clearly has said is wrong to practice. The one thing Ive learned abotu christinaity is that its a progressive life, if one belives in God it changed him, for some its a slow change for others its more rapid.

All I know is that if I dont desire practice those things then I ought to seperate myself from them, unitl they come out of those things too. If they never do, or never grow, then I have to seriously question if they are true belivers or not.

I see your point KS, it is more accurate the way you wrote it than the way I did. Thanks.


More in depth, I believe that there is only one true religion, and that religion should have one focus point in that all of ones faith must be true or he has no faith...Meaning if a "Christian" were to be wrong in his beliefs then he wouldn't be a "Christian" so to speak he would just be another person whom is not enlightened to the whole concept of divine righteousnesses...Obviously speaking hypothetically in that being "Christian"(Any religion that is the true religion) is the one and only religion because why would anyone follow the wrong religion?(Rhetorical)...

[K.Snyder]

Jester;875946 wrote: KS I started out in life in that very same bowl... I did not believe, some how what limited knowledge of God i was born with I took hold of, the miracle has been how he changes me to belive more about Him as I grow to understand him more. eventually I came to salvation through Christ because thats where my journey led, for that reason I am more chirstian than any thing else, I just know that the more I understand what God is all about the more I realize how little I know about God. The pursuit of God is the action of knowing Him. I move more towards maturity in Christ as I let off those things in the world I cling to. And thats abotu the best way I know to explain the transformation, more like Chrst and less like me. Im certain that people are far beyoind me in thier understanding and look this way at my lack of progress and say the same thing about me... 'when will he (I) learn?'.

I think its best to abandon man made religion and just live the life Christ intended, true religion has nothing to do with doctrine, or rules, it is simply to help the helpless and innocent.


Well I'm glad you're content with your belief...

I would however like to strongly clarify that I do believe in what I consider to be the one true God, and that's a presence of divine righteousness...Doesn't necessarily mean I believe there has to be a series of laws behind that is all...Meaning I don't believe one has to worship scripture in order to appreciate what righteousness truly is...

[Galbally]

This thread moved on fast!

Some points.

Just because someone is interested in talking about a specific case of murder, involving a specific set of circumstances, i.e the despicable practice of Muslim Tribal "Honour" (please) killings; that doesn't mean that they have to immeadiately also discuss all the other murders that happen around the world. This thread wasn't a discussion about global family violence, it was a thread that started off about a young man who decided his sister should be brutally murdered because she wanted to live like a European, and not an Afganistani, (which has a certain resonance with us, as she was actually living in Europe and had every right as a German citizen to choose her own lifestyle), until her brother took it upon himself to teach her, (and every other young Muslim girl who think's in a similar manner), the error of her ways. That's the story here, not domestic violence in Canada.

Most western people would be amazed that someone could do this, and that also a community would tacitly support the role of men in being the enforcers of the sexual and social subjugation of their own female family members, however, this is the norm in Islamic society, where women are basically sexual chattels. In western societies of course there are individual cases of husbands, fathers, and brothers, murdering women because of some domestic issue, normally related to infidelity or issues of control; however, (and its a big however) such actions are considered heinous by wider society, not celebrated as an example of the moral "code" being upheld. Its another example of why Western and Islamic civilization do not mix well at all, as they have different views of how society should be organized, and always will.

Again the horror with which most people in western countries would view this murder is just another example of the pitfalls of this lunatic idea of "multiculturalism", that you can have a society made up of entirely disparate worldviews, cultures, and religions. Well its my estimation that, in reality, you can't, and within a reasonably short time such societies lose all cohesion and will become conflictual. Of course its been adopted by as a mantra by the European chattering classes, without ever really thinking about what the long-term consequences would be, another example of our "feel good about yourself" politics, and the general intellectual laziness and moral cowardice that passes as "percieved wisdom" nowadays.

We have had this situation for about 30 years, unfortunatly the backlash of native communities tired of dealing with the steady erosion of their own society has now begun, and it will grow in the coming years, particularly on the Continent of Europe, and foolish politicians have a huge responsibility for the problems that are now going to arise with the rise in vigilantism and inter-communal violence. Last week in Rome, gangs of Italian youths rampaged through a fashionable roman suburb wearing swasticas attacking Bengali Muslim shops, and Romanian immigratnts, expect a lot more of this in the coming years.

So this growing problem is already evident in Western European societies where there are large muslim immigrant communities, the host societies have become uncomfortable as they realize that they basically have (by choice) imported a group of people, a majority of whom refuse to live by western standards, but instead want to create cantons of Islamic-rule inside western countries (look at the North of England, Holland, or Southern France). Many are in fact extremely hostile to Western society and want nothing to do with it, despite the fact they live slap bang in the middle of it.

These self-isolating communities have now unfortunatlely also become harbours and breeding grounds for more violent and extreme young men, normally 2nd or 3rd generation, and although most Western Muslims would not dream of committing acts of terror against non muslim fellow citizens, they still are prepared to tacitly give intellectual succour to those who do, as do some of our own so-called intellectuals. This of course creates a perfect environment for European reactionaries to start organizing with the express aim of "saving Europe from Islam", again, the responsibility lies with the idiotic mantra of multiculturalism and foolish politicians who didn't think these things through in the past.

That's why this story is newsworthy, and despite the equivocation and basic mendacity of our own moral and cultural relativists, {who in reality are quite happy for society to disintegrate anyway as they are generally the disaffected sort and don't really like western society, and think they have a better plan, spot is a good example of this} this is a real story and its my opinion that the only way to stop this stuff is to ditch the idea of multiculturalism, and cultural relativism, and get back to the idea of cohesive, democratic Western societies made up of self-participatory citizens who share a default cultural belief system.

[AussiePam]

I'm so glad you wrote that, Galbally. I wish I'd been able to do it. Thank you.

[Clodhopper]

AussiePam;875965 wrote: I'm so glad you wrote that, Galbally. I wish I'd been able to do it. Thank you.


Ditto. Though I have quibbles round the edges the temperature in this thread is already too high for me to want to say more at the moment.

[Chezzie]

Galbally;875957 wrote: This thread moved on fast!

Some points.

Just because someone is interested in talking about a specific case of murder, involving a specific set of circumstances, i.e the despicable practice of Muslim Tribal "Honour" (please) killings; that doesn't mean that they have to immeadiately also discuss all the other murders that happen around the world. This thread wasn't a discussion about global family violence, it was a thread that started off about a young man who decided his sister should be brutally murdered because she wanted to live like a European, and not an Afganistani, (which has a certain resonance with us, as she was actually living in Europe and had every right as a German citizen to choose her own lifestyle), until her brother took it upon himself to teach her, (and every other young Muslim girl who think's in a similar manner), the error of her ways. That's the story here, not domestic violence in Canada.

Most western people would be amazed that someone could do this, and that also a community would tacitly support the role of men in being the enforcers of the sexual and social subjugation of their own female family members, however, this is the norm in Islamic society, where women are basically sexual chattels. In western societies of course there are individual cases of husbands, fathers, and brothers, murdering women because of some domestic issue, normally related to infidelity or issues of control; however, (and its a big however) such actions are considered heinous by wider society, not celebrated as an example of the moral "code" being upheld. Its another example of why Western and Islamic civilization do not mix well at all, as they have different views of how society should be organized, and always will.

Again the horror with which most people in western countries would view this murder is just another example of the pitfalls of this lunatic idea of "multiculturalism", that you can have a society made up of entirely disparate worldviews, cultures, and religions. Well its my estimation that, in reality, you can't, and within a reasonably short time such societies lose all cohesion and will become conflictual. Of course its been adopted by as a mantra by the European chattering classes, without ever really thinking about what the long-term consequences would be, another example of our "feel good about yourself" politics, and the general intellectual laziness and moral cowardice that passes as "percieved wisdom" nowadays.

We have had this situation for about 30 years, unfortunatly the backlash of native communities tired of dealing with the steady erosion of their own society has now begun, and it will grow in the coming years, particularly on the Continent of Europe, and foolish politicians have a huge responsibility for the problems that are now going to arise with the rise in vigilantism and inter-communal violence. Last week in Rome, gangs of Italian youths rampaged through a fashionable roman suburb wearing swasticas attacking Bengali Muslim shops, and Romanian immigratnts, expect a lot more of this in the coming years.

So this growing problem is already evident in Western European societies where there are large muslim immigrant communities, the host societies have become uncomfortable as they realize that they basically have (by choice) imported a group of people, a majority of whom refuse to live by western standards, but instead want to create cantons of Islamic-rule inside western countries (look at the North of England, Holland, or Southern France). Many are in fact extremely hostile to Western society and want nothing to do with it, despite the fact they live slap bang in the middle of it.

These self-isolating communities have now unfortunatlely also become harbours and breeding grounds for more violent and extreme young men, normally 2nd or 3rd generation, and although most Western Muslims would not dream of committing acts of terror against non muslim fellow citizens, they still are prepared to tacitly give intellectual succour to those who do, as do some of our own so-called intellectuals. This of course creates a perfect environment for European reactionaries to start organizing with the express aim of "saving Europe from Islam", again, the responsibility lies with the idiotic mantra of multiculturalism and foolish politicians who didn't think these things through in the past.

That's why this story is newsworthy, and despite the equivocation and basic mendacity of our own moral and cultural relativists, {who in reality are quite happy for society to disintegrate anyway as they are generally the disaffected sort and don't really like western society, and think they have a better plan, spot is a good example of this} this is a real story and its my opinion that the only way to stop this stuff is to ditch the idea of multiculturalism, and cultural relativism, and get back to the idea of cohesive, democratic Western societies made up of self-participatory citizens who share a default cultural belief system.


well said Galbally..

Galbally for president:-4

I feel peeps are getting more and more fed up with type of behaviour in the garden. Its getting very boring!

[RedGlitter]

Galbally, that was very well said. Once again you so eloquently put forth your views whereas I get disgusted and stop trying. I could take more than a few lessons from you. :-6

[gmc]

Galbally;875957 wrote: This thread moved on fast!

Some points.

Just because someone is interested in talking about a specific case of murder, involving a specific set of circumstances, i.e the despicable practice of Muslim Tribal "Honour" (please) killings; that doesn't mean that they have to immeadiately also discuss all the other murders that happen around the world. This thread wasn't a discussion about global family violence, it was a thread that started off about a young man who decided his sister should be brutally murdered because she wanted to live like a European, and not an Afganistani, (which has a certain resonance with us, as she was actually living in Europe and had every right as a German citizen to choose her own lifestyle), until her brother took it upon himself to teach her, (and every other young Muslim girl who think's in a similar manner), the error of her ways. That's the story here, not domestic violence in Canada.

Most western people would be amazed that someone could do this, and that also a community would tacitly support the role of men in being the enforcers of the sexual and social subjugation of their own female family members, however, this is the norm in Islamic society, where women are basically sexual chattels. In western societies of course there are individual cases of husbands, fathers, and brothers, murdering women because of some domestic issue, normally related to infidelity or issues of control; however, (and its a big however) such actions are considered heinous by wider society, not celebrated as an example of the moral "code" being upheld. Its another example of why Western and Islamic civilization do not mix well at all, as they have different views of how society should be organized, and always will.

Again the horror with which most people in western countries would view this murder is just another example of the pitfalls of this lunatic idea of "multiculturalism", that you can have a society made up of entirely disparate worldviews, cultures, and religions. Well its my estimation that, in reality, you can't, and within a reasonably short time such societies lose all cohesion and will become conflictual. Of course its been adopted by as a mantra by the European chattering classes, without ever really thinking about what the long-term consequences would be, another example of our "feel good about yourself" politics, and the general intellectual laziness and moral cowardice that passes as "percieved wisdom" nowadays.

We have had this situation for about 30 years, unfortunatly the backlash of native communities tired of dealing with the steady erosion of their own society has now begun, and it will grow in the coming years, particularly on the Continent of Europe, and foolish politicians have a huge responsibility for the problems that are now going to arise with the rise in vigilantism and inter-communal violence. Last week in Rome, gangs of Italian youths rampaged through a fashionable roman suburb wearing swasticas attacking Bengali Muslim shops, and Romanian immigratnts, expect a lot more of this in the coming years.

So this growing problem is already evident in Western European societies where there are large muslim immigrant communities, the host societies have become uncomfortable as they realize that they basically have (by choice) imported a group of people, a majority of whom refuse to live by western standards, but instead want to create cantons of Islamic-rule inside western countries (look at the North of England, Holland, or Southern France). Many are in fact extremely hostile to Western society and want nothing to do with it, despite the fact they live slap bang in the middle of it.

These self-isolating communities have now unfortunatlely also become harbours and breeding grounds for more violent and extreme young men, normally 2nd or 3rd generation, and although most Western Muslims would not dream of committing acts of terror against non muslim fellow citizens, they still are prepared to tacitly give intellectual succour to those who do, as do some of our own so-called intellectuals. This of course creates a perfect environment for European reactionaries to start organizing with the express aim of "saving Europe from Islam", again, the responsibility lies with the idiotic mantra of multiculturalism and foolish politicians who didn't think these things through in the past.

That's why this story is newsworthy, and despite the equivocation and basic mendacity of our own moral and cultural relativists, {who in reality are quite happy for society to disintegrate anyway as they are generally the disaffected sort and don't really like western society, and think they have a better plan, spot is a good example of this} this is a real story and its my opinion that the only way to stop this stuff is to ditch the idea of multiculturalism, and cultural relativism, and get back to the idea of cohesive, democratic Western societies made up of self-participatory citizens who share a default cultural belief system.


Well said. Best way to integrate would have been by mixing up the kids. It's noticeable that kids from eastern European countries very rapidly learn English because they have to and after a few months only the names set them apart. It's not race or religion that cause a problem so much as keeping everybody separate.

The UK has a real problem in that separate faith schools are allowed, now we have muslims demanding separate schools with muslim teachers. Gets difficult to refuse cos if you say no and insist on secular schools you have all the catholic, and in england the c of e schools as well, up in arms about it. TB made things worse before he left by allowing more faith based schools. We have also been turning a blind eye to forced marriage. We're too tolerant of intolerance and bigotry when it comes from religious groups

[spot]

RedGlitter;876318 wrote: Galbally, that was very well said. Once again you so eloquently put forth your views whereas I get disgusted and stop trying. I could take more than a few lessons from you. :-6


No, it's still let's-bash-Islam, I still don't see it as a healthy discussion of the facts.

Let me try to focus in slightly on what's bothering me about this thread and others like it. What I'd like to do is focus in on other forms of familial murder (since that's what you've been bringing up repeatedly) which happen exclusively outside the Middle East and which I consider just as wicked as the one under discussion here.

Men who kill rather than divorce in order to retain their capital, for example, that seems to me to be a peculiarly Western form of familial murder with no equivalent in Middle Eastern society. Is there anyone who'd like to suggest that it's more excusable than honour killing?

I'll bring in example murders if anyone wants me to but I claim that I can bring in a lot, that there's a pattern to them, that they involve financial greed and that they're a distinctly Western form of crime against women.

[Matt314159]

spot;877467 wrote: No, it's still let's-bash-Islam, I still don't see it as a healthy discussion of the facts.

Let me try to focus in slightly on what's bothering me about this thread and others like it. What I'd like to do is focus in on other forms of familial murder (since that's what you've been bringing up repeatedly) which happen exclusively outside the Middle East and which I consider just as wicked as the one under discussion here.

Men who kill rather than divorce in order to retain their capital, for example, that seems to me to be a peculiarly Western form of familial murder with no equivalent in Middle Eastern society. Is there anyone who'd like to suggest that it's more excusable than honour killing?

I'll bring in example murders if anyone wants me to but I claim that I can bring in a lot, that there's a pattern to them, that they involve financial greed and that they're a distinctly Western form of crime against women.


You're turning this thread into something it ain't. I'd suggest you go back and carefully re-read Galbally's post. It might be a lot to take in, but read it and think on it. And if you feel up to it, address the very well articulated points therein.

[gmc]

spot;877467 wrote: No, it's still let's-bash-Islam, I still don't see it as a healthy discussion of the facts.

Let me try to focus in slightly on what's bothering me about this thread and others like it. What I'd like to do is focus in on other forms of familial murder (since that's what you've been bringing up repeatedly) which happen exclusively outside the Middle East and which I consider just as wicked as the one under discussion here.

Men who kill rather than divorce in order to retain their capital, for example, that seems to me to be a peculiarly Western form of familial murder with no equivalent in Middle Eastern society. Is there anyone who'd like to suggest that it's more excusable than honour killing?

I'll bring in example murders if anyone wants me to but I claim that I can bring in a lot, that there's a pattern to them, that they involve financial greed and that they're a distinctly Western form of crime against women.


We used to have similar attitudes in the west but have hopefully progressed beyond it to the extent that most of us would find it unacceptable. Even at it's worst few would have condoned the murder of a transgressing woman or defended the murderer. Mind you we did use to send women who had illegitimate children or were promiscuous to mental asylums as feeble minded-right up to fairly modern times.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 819451.ece

A catholic might chuck out a family member for marrying a protestant-or a protestant a family member for marrying a catholic. But they are unlikely to kill them. Although the brothers might beat the crap out of the boyfriend.

More to the point no matter what the religion no one can claim exemption from the law or use it as a mitigating circumstance. Moral certainty and god whispering in your ear is no excuse.

[spot]

I recognise the points being made, I'm merely showing (I hope) that there are other societal causes of familial murder which are equally horrendous but not driven by any religious conviction at all, merely by greed.

Here, I did offer to bring in reading material to provide examples. This is from last month's NBC program "Murder In The Family":(Voiceover) His mother's first step had been the restraining order. The second, getting a good divorce lawyer. In Florida, it's 50-50, and there seemed to be enough community property to share, a net worth estimated at up to $6 million. While the divorce was working its way through the court, the judge ruled that Edward Sr. would have to pay his wife $5400 a month.

(Photo of Maggie and Edward Sr.; outside building; outside house; outside condo; hallway; empty courtroom)

MURPHY: And they freeze his assets, huh?

Ms. LEVINE: They freeze his assets because, in order to pay the alimony, he starts to take it out of the joint assets. Judge said, `No. You're suppose to take it out of your income.' He doesn't want to do that. He wants it all for himself.

MURPHY: (Voiceover) Edward Sr. was an accountant and so was his wife, Maggie, so she knew how to read the books on the family finances, knew the accounts where the money was invested, and she knew that her husband hadn't disclosed their true net worth to the judge. She was going to tell the judge, in effect, that Edward had been squirrelling away some money from the court and from her.

(Accounts ledger; pencils; security system; gate; outside house; gavel)

MURPHY: So she could say in her deposition, `Look, this is what this marriage, this guy is really worth.'

Ms. LEVINE: Exactly. She had actually been a CPA and she was finding every single account.

MURPHY: (Voiceover) But hours before that courtroom confrontation, she was murdered by her brother-in-law from North Carolina. That was the jury's finding. The day after his wife's murder, Edward Locascio's lawyer did go to court to have his divorce case dismissed, his assets unfrozen, and to declare him sole beneficiary of the estate.Am I mistaken? Do people find an instance like this less distressing than the initial German honour killing?

[K.Snyder]

spot;877582 wrote: I recognise the points being made, I'm merely showing (I hope) that there are other societal causes of familial murder which are equally horrendous but not driven by any religious conviction at all, merely by greed.

Here, I did offer to bring in reading material to provide examples. This is from last month's NBC program "Murder In The Family":(Voiceover) His mother's first step had been the restraining order. The second, getting a good divorce lawyer. In Florida, it's 50-50, and there seemed to be enough community property to share, a net worth estimated at up to $6 million. While the divorce was working its way through the court, the judge ruled that Edward Sr. would have to pay his wife $5400 a month.

(Photo of Maggie and Edward Sr.; outside building; outside house; outside condo; hallway; empty courtroom)

MURPHY: And they freeze his assets, huh?

Ms. LEVINE: They freeze his assets because, in order to pay the alimony, he starts to take it out of the joint assets. Judge said, `No. You're suppose to take it out of your income.' He doesn't want to do that. He wants it all for himself.

MURPHY: (Voiceover) Edward Sr. was an accountant and so was his wife, Maggie, so she knew how to read the books on the family finances, knew the accounts where the money was invested, and she knew that her husband hadn't disclosed their true net worth to the judge. She was going to tell the judge, in effect, that Edward had been squirrelling away some money from the court and from her.

(Accounts ledger; pencils; security system; gate; outside house; gavel)

MURPHY: So she could say in her deposition, `Look, this is what this marriage, this guy is really worth.'

Ms. LEVINE: Exactly. She had actually been a CPA and she was finding every single account.

MURPHY: (Voiceover) But hours before that courtroom confrontation, she was murdered by her brother-in-law from North Carolina. That was the jury's finding. The day after his wife's murder, Edward Locascio's lawyer did go to court to have his divorce case dismissed, his assets unfrozen, and to declare him sole beneficiary of the estate.Am I mistaken? Do people find an instance like this less distressing than the initial German honour killing?


I find any murder equally heinous...

[gmc]

spot;877582 wrote: I recognise the points being made, I'm merely showing (I hope) that there are other societal causes of familial murder which are equally horrendous but not driven by any religious conviction at all, merely by greed.

Here, I did offer to bring in reading material to provide examples. This is from last month's NBC program "Murder In The Family":(Voiceover) His mother's first step had been the restraining order. The second, getting a good divorce lawyer. In Florida, it's 50-50, and there seemed to be enough community property to share, a net worth estimated at up to $6 million. While the divorce was working its way through the court, the judge ruled that Edward Sr. would have to pay his wife $5400 a month.

(Photo of Maggie and Edward Sr.; outside building; outside house; outside condo; hallway; empty courtroom)

MURPHY: And they freeze his assets, huh?

Ms. LEVINE: They freeze his assets because, in order to pay the alimony, he starts to take it out of the joint assets. Judge said, `No. You're suppose to take it out of your income.' He doesn't want to do that. He wants it all for himself.

MURPHY: (Voiceover) Edward Sr. was an accountant and so was his wife, Maggie, so she knew how to read the books on the family finances, knew the accounts where the money was invested, and she knew that her husband hadn't disclosed their true net worth to the judge. She was going to tell the judge, in effect, that Edward had been squirrelling away some money from the court and from her.

(Accounts ledger; pencils; security system; gate; outside house; gavel)

MURPHY: So she could say in her deposition, `Look, this is what this marriage, this guy is really worth.'

Ms. LEVINE: Exactly. She had actually been a CPA and she was finding every single account.

MURPHY: (Voiceover) But hours before that courtroom confrontation, she was murdered by her brother-in-law from North Carolina. That was the jury's finding. The day after his wife's murder, Edward Locascio's lawyer did go to court to have his divorce case dismissed, his assets unfrozen, and to declare him sole beneficiary of the estate.Am I mistaken? Do people find an instance like this less distressing than the initial German honour killing?


It's different. One was for money and greed, very few if any would consider it justified in any way.

The other was because the brother thought he had a moral right to do what he did. It's shocking because of those who seem to think the "right" was his to dispose of the sister as he saw fit and that his religion gives special dispensation and we should be understanding of the cultural difference. A spurious argument if ever there was one.

Do you think the girl should have been encouraged to live her life as she saw fit or was the brother right?

[spot]

K.Snyder;877647 wrote: I find any murder equally heinous...


Then why this need to ignore all the local murders, the murders on the same continent? Why do worldwide Western news agencies shriek their news about an honour killing in Germany, and why does it end up on ForumGarden, if all murders are equally heinous?

What I've brought here is a pattern of killing which is very familiar to the West, which people perhaps think is due to understandable motives. Greed, perhaps, is something to applaud, and if it goes too far and tips over into murder then it's over-enthusiastic and ought to be condemned when enquired into but it's not as vile, not as loathsome, not as culturally disgusting as an honour killing. Is that it? If that's not it, why are we discussing a murder in Germany in this thread?

[spot]

gmc;877714 wrote: It's different. One was for money and greed, very few if any would consider it justified in any way.

The other was because the brother thought he had a moral right to do what he did. It's shocking because of those who seem to think the "right" was his to dispose of the sister as he saw fit and that his religion gives special dispensation and we should be understanding of the cultural difference. A spurious argument if ever there was one.

Do you think the girl should have been encouraged to live her life as she saw fit or was the brother right?


Here it is again, this slur that Honour Murder is a peculiarly Islamic thing or that any Islamic theologian would declare any Honour Murder to be justified. It's being taken for granted here that it's true and I've asked several times for the accusation to be supported by evidence.

Was the brother right? Of course the brother wasn't right and he deserves the identical treatment by the court of the land as any other murderer. It's still one instance of murder in focus in this thread out of thousands that could have been chosen, and it just happens to be one which allows the convenient scapegoating of Islam. Nobody has said that his religion gives special dispensation, nobody has said that we should be understanding of the cultural difference, you're raising false targets for the audience to boo and hiss at. It's not happened.

I'm interested in the matter of scale, for one thing. The number of honour murders in the UK, for example, is around one a month, 12 a year, out of a total number of murders of around 800 of which most are domestic. I'd suggest that this Western concept of Greed Murder is a bigger factor in murder world-wide than any Honour Murder system is, and furthermore that Honour Murder, while it's not figured prominently in Western society for the last couple of hundred years (though it definitely has done in the past, just consider the Jacobean plays of people like Webster which drew on genuine events of their times), does still figure prominently in (for example) Hindu society. As such, I continue to say it's not a matter of any religious injunction, it has a cultural basis. Again I'll refer to the study I brought in earlier to this thread, http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/pdf/Cri ... munity.pdf

I put it to the thread that Honour Murder, while reprehensible, has an understandable rationale in those cultures where it developed and that it has to be eliminated from the world. Similarly Greed Murder has an understandable rationale in those cultures where it developed - the Western world this time - and that it also has to be eliminated from the world. There are far more instances of Western Greed Murder than of Honour Murder, I judge it to be a bigotry to highlight the one constantly while ignoring the other. It's a deliberate blackening of the public perception of a single religion, Islam, which has no reasonable excuse and involves many inaccurate slurs.

[RedGlitter]

By contrast Spot, why do you apparently feel the need to be outraged at the rest of the "Greed Murders" rather than lending same outrage to the honor killing?

I posted this (To answer your repeating question) here at FG so we could discuss the honor killing at length and the fact that this backward trend of culture has filthied Germany now. I don't consider Greed Murders any more important or worse than this one honor killing because a life is a life and what you are implying is that I should be more angered over the loss of say, 600 lives as opposed to the "lesser" loss of one life.

I won't do it.

[spot]

RedGlitter;878317 wrote: By contrast Spot, why do you apparently feel the need to be outraged at the rest of the "Greed Murders" rather than lending same outrage to the honor killing?

I posted this (To answer your repeating question) here at FG so we could discuss the honor killing at length and the fact that this backward trend of culture has filthied Germany now. I don't consider Greed Murders any more important or worse than this one honor killing because a life is a life and what you are implying is that I should be more angered over the loss of say, 600 lives as opposed to the "lesser" loss of one life.

I won't do it.


You select those murders which advance your agenda? Is that it? What interests you gets a thread and all those uncomfortable deaths which happen instead to be a part of your own American cultural background you'll brush under the carpet and pretend they're invisible? Honour Murders are a way of attacking the Great Satan of Islam - since you're determined to claim it as an aspect of Islam despite a lack of any evidence that it qualifies as one, and despite my posts pointing to Honour Murders in Hindu society - so it's a weapon you'll use. You've no interest in discussing Greed Murders because they're in your own back yard, they reflect badly on your own culture. And you reject any notion that bigotry's involved in your choice? "A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"? You're seriously saying that's inapplicable?

[spot]

Jester;878344 wrote: Yes, I reject any notion of the sort on her behalf, and frankly Im tired of you interjecting the accusation without level proof, or presenting valid evidence, other than your opinion. You sir are out of order, now, and this is an attack on Red. You have accused her of bigotry for posting a single article. I think the sentence you missed earlier was Red's "It seems every time someone, usually me, posts about honor killing, you bring up the same tired refrain". The whole point is that it's not a single article, it's an anti-Islamic trend.

As for "we're not talking about a Hindu killing in this case we are talking about a Islamic killing" - the bit you're missing is that it's neither. Neither religion has a positive comment to make on it as far as I'm aware, both condemn these murders. Would you like quotes from Muslim and Hindu clerics? That document I referred to does go into the matter.

The murder is an honour murder. We both deplore honour murders. You deplore them more than you deplore greed murders. The killing in Germany "stands out of the typical greed killings" which is why you think it's been publicized so widely. That's where we disagree. I find greed murders to be extraordinarily vile because they have such little justification. Someone's perception of their honour might well be a perception of something of genuine value but mere wealth? It's trivial. As an excuse for murder it's far worse. Murdering strangers is far worse too, murdering a stranger is murdering someone who's had no possible way of avoiding their fate. You're dead-set against honour murders solely because they're so rare in your society, they're an opportunity to distinguish your culture from a Middle Eastern culture and you jump on it with both feet and declare it to be a difference between the Wonderful West and Islam.

You still totally refuse to talk about the lack of any honour killing tradition in Indonesia, for example, where several hundred million Muslims avoid it just as the West avoids it, because it's not a part of the way they were brought up. If it were a religious command it would be practised there among Indonesian Muslims, don't you think?

[spot]

Jester;878351 wrote: Wasting bandwidth Spot.

I wont delve into your attempts to drag this off even a tenth of a point. The fact remains that when Red posts you jump on her like you did on this thread same as many other threads.

You made a lot of assumptions about me up there, none of which is accurate.

You accused her of bigotry, and from what I can read your accusing her of posting only about honor killing with the intent to slam muslums. And thats not true.

Are you going to be a gentleman and issue an apology Spot?


I've made no assumptions about you which are inaccurate. Point out the ones you mean and I'll discuss them. An unsubstantiated generalization like "you made a lot of assumptions about me up there, none of which is accurate" does nothing for anyone.

You can't have it both ways, you know. If I jump on Red when she posts "like you did on this thread same as many other threads" then there's a set of threads by her relating to Islam which I've criticized, not just one. As she said, "It seems every time someone, usually me, posts about honor killing, you bring up the same tired refrain". I've interpreted her reason for targeting Muslims in these threads to be a specific hatred of their religion. I see a whole lot of denial going on but no alternative reason gets posted. When it descends to picking out a report of a murder in Germany it's getting a bit rabid, given the host of local articles she could be choosing instead. Let's go chasing Greed Murders for a while instead, eh? They're just as reprehensible, remember? Or shall we just stick with dehumanizing Muslims as a group because that's our objective.

[spot]

Jester;878383 wrote: It rarely means we have a spiteful agenda to destroy someone or some ideology.What a shocking set of coincidences we've seen over the years then, who'd have thought it possible.