Muslim father chokes daughter to near death

[Dkz]

This faulty logic has been beaten to death already. It's obvious you didn't read the thread and are just here to blab on with your anti-American propaganda.

What you call 'anti-american' is how the rest of the world sees america.

[bush_cheney2004]

Those countries you mentioned were all invaded with a UN or Nato mandate. Afghanistan was a unilateral invasion.

Poppycock.

Just as Pickton or Bernardo or McVeigh killing all those people doesn't make all white people into mass murderers and rapists, one honour killing by 1 Muslim doesn't make all 1 billion+ Muslims into killers.

But some white people are mass murderers....so are some Muslims.

Get some reading glasses I did say 'most of it is peacekeeping', which it is. Canadians fought in WWI and WWII and the Korean War. Aside from that its been mostly peacekeeping. If you like, I can name you individual UN missions like Haiti,Cyprus,Bosnia, Rawanda, and many others.

More poppycock.

[Dkz]

Oh?

United States

Australia

United Kingdom

Canada

Denmark

Germany

France

Lithuania

Netherlands

New Zealand

Italy

India

Norway

Portugal

Spain

Romania

Estonia

Finland

That's a list of all the countries that have offered support to the war in Afghanistan. Your definition of "unilateral" must be very broad.

Not all those countries sent military personnel to Afghanistan. Some such as India only sent financial support to the people of Afghanistan or gave political support AFTERWARDS due to US threats. During the Invasion, the US and UK were the only ones that actually invaded Afghanistan.

This doesn't even mention the fact that the United States was ATTACKED by an organization residing within Afghanistan. The Taliban government refused to do anything to stop that organization from launching attacks on the US, which makes it completely within America's right to disarm al-qaeda and overthrow the uncooperative Taliban for supporting them.

You have to be smoking something funny to actually believe that. the attack on the US that you talk about was by a group called 'Al Qaida'. 19 of 21 bombers and the leader of this organization were Saudi Arabian. Why not Attack on either Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Al Qaida support amongst Pakistanis is quite strong as well. The planner of 9-11 was Khalid Shiekh Muhhamed of Pakistan.

I seriously doubt that the Taliban had anything to do with the attack. Afghanistan was and still is a primative country run by warlords. Taliban was one set of warlords (funded by Pakistan and the US in the past). Taliban had 98% of the country under its control. Today drug trafficing warlords like Rashid Dostum are in the cabinent of Afghanistan's puppet government. The puppet, Karzai runs only Kabul. Various warlords run the country side. Afghanistan is in a civil war. The Taliban were almost all of Pashtun ethnic group which forms most of the Afghan population.

Osama Bin Laden was living in Sudan and the US asked him to leave Sudan or it would invade that country. That was the threat made before 9-11. Bin laden was the reason cited by the US for the invasion of Afghanistan. The real reason was they wanted bases in that country due to Afghanistan's strategic importance in the area.

I don't know why I'm bothering explaining this, since you clearly have an agenda to smear the United States, rather than look at anything rationally. So, you really don't need to reply... I'm sure I can figure out what your canned response will be.

US is a pussy picking on little countries with no army. If they have balls they would pick on someone like China to invade.

Edited January 6, 2008 by Dkz

[Dkz]

United States

Australia

United Kingdom

Canada

Denmark

Germany

France

Lithuania

Netherlands

New Zealand

Italy

India

Norway

Portugal

Spain

Romania

Estonia

Finland

Out of this list, the only countries with a real army of any significance are: India (which did not participate militarily due to mass protests in India against the US), France, US and UK. France, US and UK have been cold war allies since the end of WWII. These 4 counries are all nuclear armed as well. All other countries are on the list just to appease the US so that it could show at a later date that they had support. Those countries were given political favours in exchange or finiancial aid.

Missing from your list are:

China, Russia, and the majority of the 130+ countries that are members of the UN.

[Dkz]

More on International Terrorist George Bush:

http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/torture.html

entire re-copied article deleted by moderator

Edited November 24, 2008 by Charles Anthony
re-copied article deleted

[Dkz]

More evidence of US racism post-9-11 directed at Arabs. This is regarding Maher Arar, a Canadian who was wrongly deported to Syria by the US and treated diffferently because of his ethnicity. US authorities knew of Syria's torture record and still sent him there. How this man came back is a miracle.

SHAME ON THE USA!!!!!

http://www.maherarar.ca/mahers%20story.php

Mahers Story

You can read the chronolgy of events that led to Maher's arrest, deportation and return in pdf format here.

You can read Maher's statement during the press conference held on November 4, 2003 in pdf format here.

You can watch a short video about what happened to Maher here.

EDITED OUT by moderator

Thank you for your patience.

Edited January 7, 2008 by Charles Anthony
copyright and excess quoting

[Melanie_]

Dkz - there are multiple threads regarding Mahar Arar on this forum. If you are interested in reviving one of them, you can do a search, read the entire thread, and add your thoughts. It seems that you are hijacking this thread, though; the topic is the father who killed his daughter.

Edited January 7, 2008 by Melanie_

[Alexandra]

To get back on topic from all of the blabbing from a Vancouver (probably from North Surrey where murders and abuse of Indo-Canadian women are common-place) Indo-Canadian racist, anti-American ignoramus, it is surprising that Ontario actually came so close to legislating the Islamic Sharia Law as proposed by an NDP woman MPP. Apparently it took this woman, Homa Arjomand and thousands of Canadian women getting in McGuinty's face for him to finally say NO to this LAW:

Protecting Women and Children From Sharia

By Jamie Glazov

FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Homa Arjomand, the Coordinator of the International Campaign Against Sharia Court in Canada. She was recognized as Woman of the Year by Gazette Des Femmes in 2005. In 2006, she received the annual Toronto Humanist of the Year award and the HAC (Humanist Association of Canada) Humanist of The Year Award.

FP: Your thoughts on the recent tragic honor killing of Aqsa Parvez?

Arjomand: Aqsa Parvez is obviously another victim of honor killing. She has been tried and sentenced to death by her family’s belief, for not honoring the backward culture and traditions which are promoted and guarded by religious movements -- in particular Islamic movement globally.

Honor killing is a punishment for the women who act not according to the religion, tradition and culture imposed on them. To be more precise it is a punishment for the ones who desire to run their own lifestyle and choose their own partner. The victims are women and young girls who have thirst to be free and are not willing to compromise for less than a modern and humane life style.

The death of Aqsa Parvez at the age of 16 is just a tip of the iceberg in Canada , where respect of backward cultures and religions comes before women’s and children’s rights, where cultural ghettoes have become an ideal heaven to crush any desire in women to be free.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx...CA-4BFC-9A4F-59

[jbg]

[/i]

maybe you're heard of this practice that happens in a Christian country called: Spain :

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/...lona/index.html

Yes. Those aren't mass deaths. Those are deaths from assumed risks, much like the risk of getting beaned by a hockey puck at a game.

[jbg]

Staying within your own culture with minimal interaction with other cultures. No hicktown in Alabama or anywhere else in the US would allow such multiculturalism to take place.

Sure they would. If they wanted to pay for their own private schools, etc. they would be free to. That is, if the parents care so much for the old country culture and so little for their childrens' well-being and opportunity (link to related topic).

My great-grandparents came to New York City over the period 1890-1910. Presumably, they spoke Yiddish and maybe a local European language, Polish, Ukrainian or Magyar. They quickly set about learning English, so that my father, born in 1925, or about 40 years after his grandparents on his father's side came, and maybe 15 years after his mother came, spoke English with no accent. I don't remember his mother having an accent either. My father became a successful interior architect; I am a lawyer. My mother's father was a dentist; my father's father was an architect.

By your logic, they made a major mistake. They should have lobbied for the appoint of a "Yiddish Affairs Minister", so that my parents' and my generation could continue to exist in the US without learning English. We should have the right to have all "services" provided in such a way as to freeze the cultural time frame to the 1890-1910 Europe shtetl era.

[jbg]

To get back on topic from all of the blabbing from a Vancouver (probably from North Surrey where murders and abuse of Indo-Canadian women are common-place) Indo-Canadian racist, anti-American ignoramus, it is surprising that Ontario actually came so close to legislating the Islamic Sharia Law as proposed by an NDP woman MPP. Apparently it took this woman, Homa Arjomand and thousands of Canadian women getting in McGuinty's face for him to finally say NO to this LAW:

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx...CA-4BFC-9A4F-59

Given the atmosphere of uber politcal correctness I'm not surprised at all.

[JB Globe]

Since the initial international media coverage of the murder of Aqsa Parvez we've learned a few things from friends and family of hers.

Namely - that the hijab was one of a variety of things she clashed with her father about, and that other women in her family don't wear the hijab either.

When this incident first happened I stated that I while I really wished that the attention her death was getting was the result of people actually caring about domestic violence - however, the evidence suggested that all the hype had everything to do with her being Muslim, and nothing to do with her being murdered by her father.

Essentially, this incident became an opportunity for Islamophobes to exploit a tragedy and advance their agenda of portraying Muslims as something other than human, as inherently evil. They subsequently ignored the reaction from the Muslim community - which consisted of every major national Muslim organization condemning the murder, of Islamic Scholars commenting that the murder is un-Islamic, and Imams going on hunger strikes in Parvez's name.

The many people feigning concern, outrage and sympathy for Aqsa's murder at the hands of her non-white Muslim father were subsequently silent when white fathers murdered their children, or even entire families:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=986415

Where is the international outrage regarding Keith DeLong's murder of his entire family? Would it be different if the family was Muslim? Unfortunately, yes.

The media is complicit too, there was too much coverage of the initial incident (especially considering the kind of coverage family murder-suicides get) when the only real information about the situation within the family that surrounded the murder was pure hearsay - in short, bad journalism. Now that more facts have come out (and will continue to come out during the trial, no doubt) that through water on the "Islam killed Aqsa" line of thought, media outlets have lost interest in the story (why would they want to detail how the got it wrong, after all?)

I said it before and I'll say it again, Aqsa Parvez was a victim of domestic violence, not Islam - and it seems as though we don't we REALLY care about domestic violence as a society.

[Mr.Canada]

This isn't the first honour killing in Canada. This is perfectly acceptable in Islamic countries which follow Islamic/Sharia law. Muslims feel they do nothing wrong when they murder in the name of Alah for honour. The sooner real Canadians learn that the better. Hopefully we can overcome this tyranny.

[JB Globe]

This isn't the first honour killing in Canada.

Why are you claiming it's an honour killing?

Why does society seemingly care more about supposed "honour killings" (which is really just a term for "violence against women that happens to be committed by Muslims") than they do when children are murdered by parents who aren't Muslim?

Muslims feel they do nothing wrong when they murder in the name of Alah for honour.

That's an absolutely ridiculous generalization and completely false.

Hopefully we can overcome this tyranny.

The tyranny of domestic violence? I hope so - but not so long as people only pay lip service to being against domestic violence only when the person committing the violent act happens to be Muslim.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why does society seemingly care more about supposed "honour killings" (which is really just a term for "violence against women that happens to be committed by Muslims") than they do when children are murdered by parents who aren't Muslim?

So called "honour killings" and "honour suicides" apply to more than just "Muslims". What is "society" in the context of many nations being the location of such killings?

[JB Globe]

So called "honour killings" and "honour suicides" apply to more than just "Muslims". What is "society" in the context of many nations being the location of such killings?

I was talking specifically about Canada, and let me broaden the question to ask: "Why is it national, even international news for days when someone who isn't white, is an immigrant, and/or isn't Christian murders their child or spouse - but similar cases, or family-murder-suicides register barely a blip on the national or international consciousness when the family involved is white, Christian and not immigrants?"

In short - why were people in BC talking about Aqsa Parvez, and why aren't they talking about Keith DeLong?

My take is it has absolutely nothing to do with our concern about the crime committed, with domestic violence, with untreated mental health issues, and has everything to do with the fact that the family involved was Muslim.

I think this entire case is a clear example of Islamophobia, xenophobia and how people who subscribe to these lines of thinking create double-standards and logical fallacies.

[cybercoma]

[islamophobes] subsequently ignored the reaction from the Muslim community - which consisted of every major national Muslim organization condemning the murder, of Islamic Scholars commenting that the murder is un-Islamic, and Imams going on hunger strikes in Parvez's name.

And they continue to do so, even in the face of evidence contrary to their opinions:

This isn't the first honour killing in Canada. This is perfectly acceptable in Islamic countries which follow Islamic/Sharia law. Muslims feel they do nothing wrong when they murder in the name of Alah for honour. The sooner real Canadians learn that the better. Hopefully we can overcome this tyranny.

[Mr.Canada]

Well then this just goes to show how much of a lawless religion Islam is. Many Imams condemn these honour killings yet the killings continue. This isn't Saudi Arabia and these Muslims need to learn to respect our laws not just Sharia law.

If they cannot then they should be deported after they serve their sentences, Canada doesn't need them. Canada is an inclusive society and these Muslims don't want to be included, their actions speak to that so they should be excluded and shipped back to their homeland.

[Oleg Bach]

Mohamid married a rich widow - took the cash and got himself an army and converted anyone in his way with a sword. What good has this brought humaity? Anyone who is supposedly doing God's bidding by chopping off heads and hand or wringing the neck of a young female family member - all in the name of God - Is a damned infidel - To partake in such violence is clearly stating that God is weak and pitiful and not all mighty and needs the use of human hands to murder...what a bunch of self absorbed lunitics - who is propogating this stupidity? Surely their spiritual leaders are not spiritual men but mere power mongers and trouble makers.

[cybercoma]

Well then this just goes to show how much of a lawless religion Islam is. Many Imams condemn these honour killings yet the killings continue. This isn't Saudi Arabia and these Muslims need to learn to respect our laws not just Sharia law.

If they cannot then they should be deported after they serve their sentences, Canada doesn't need them. Canada is an inclusive society and these Muslims don't want to be included, their actions speak to that so they should be excluded and shipped back to their homeland.

Muslims face the same laws as the rest of Canadians. When a person kills a member of their family, they go to the same court and are tried under the same rules. If you can show that Muslims in Canada murder family members at a higher rate than any other abusive husbands that beat and kill their wives or children, please do so. What you're suggesting is that people should be punished more severely because of their religious beliefs.

The poster that bumped this thread showed clearly that this murder was not praised by the Muslim community, in fact it was condemned. Yet you continue to push an argument that is clearly filled with discrimination. Why should laws be made that treat Canadians unequally? Since anyone that commits murder will face trial the same as any other Canadian, what you're suggesting is to punish someone for their religious beliefs. If that's the Canada you want to build, then the only deportation I would suggest is yours.

[cybercoma]

Mohamid married a rich widow - took the cash and got himself an army and converted anyone in his way with a sword. What good has this brought humaity? Anyone who is supposedly doing God's bidding by chopping off heads and hand or wringing the neck of a young female family member - all in the name of God - Is a damned infidel - To partake in such violence is clearly stating that God is weak and pitiful and not all mighty and needs the use of human hands to murder...what a bunch of self absorbed lunitics - who is propogating this stupidity? Surely their spiritual leaders are not spiritual men but mere power mongers and trouble makers.

Christianity was also spread by the sword at the same time. In fact, the primary reason Muhammad took up the sword was to defend his beliefs. Perhaps you should read Thomas Aquinas' opinion of Muhammad to get a better idea of how Christianity viewed them at the time. It is not wise to apply modern standards of human rights to a century where such notions were all but non-existent. Edited November 24, 2008 by cybercoma

[Oleg Bach]

Christianity was also spread by the sword at the same time. In fact, the primary reason Muhammad took up the sword was to defend his beliefs. Perhaps you should read Thomas Aquinas' opinion of Muhammad to get a better idea of how Christianity viewed them at the time. It is not wise to apply modern standards of human rights to a century where such notions were all but non-existent.

He was a buisness man - the basis for the opportunity to launch his beliefs was in the fact that he had money. There is not one mention in New Testimonial Christian writings about picking up the sword and defending the beliefs of Jesus - other than that one incident when Peter the traitor lopped off an ear of a Roman cop. If you consider the old Roman Catholic Knights Christians -who attacked Muslims ---- well they were Paulists - for the most part and just as barbaric as their counterparts - on that I agree. When a knight wrote back to the Pope in confusion because he could not tell the Christians apart from the Islamic - the Pope retorted "Kill them all" - yup - barbarians.

[guyser]

Yet you continue to push an argument that is clearly filled with discrimination.

Aint that the truth.

Mr Canaduh..

The sooner real Canadians learn that the better

Wonder what fake ones look like versusreal Canadians.

Says it all doesnt it?

[cybercoma]

He was a buisness man - the basis for the opportunity to launch his beliefs was in the fact that he had money. There is not one mention in New Testimonial Christian writings about picking up the sword and defending the beliefs of Jesus - other than that one incident when Peter the traitor lopped off an ear of a Roman cop. If you consider the old Roman Catholic Knights Christians -who attacked Muslims ---- well they were Paulists - for the most part and just as barbaric as their counterparts - on that I agree. When a knight wrote back to the Pope in confusion because he could not tell the Christians apart from the Islamic - the Pope retorted "Kill them all" - yup - barbarians.

Is your point that Christians are not necessarily Christians unless they subscribe to a particular brand of Christianity? The origins of Christianity is Rome. The Roman Catholic Church, like it or not, was Christianity at the time of Muhammad. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, you mind clarifying?

Edited November 24, 2008 by cybercoma

[Oleg Bach]

Is your point that Christians are not necessarily Christians unless they subscribe to a particular brand of Christianity? The origins of Christianity is Rome. The Roman Catholic Church, like it or not, was Christianity at the time of Muhammad. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, you mind clarifying?

Personally from what I observed and studied was the Christianity died with the founder..it never reached the world. The universal church or Catholic as it is called - practiced a form of anti-christism - they did the exact opposite to what the founder wanted..they did not fulfill the contract. You are correct in the statement that it was Rome that was and is the centre of Christianity as we percieve it - the basis of the old doctrine was the embracing of reality commonly called truth - never saw a sign of that - did you?