For All You Non-Interventionists Out There
Woman raped before "honor killing": court
LONDON (Reuters) - A Kurdish woman was brutally raped, stamped on and strangled by members of her family and their friends in an "honor killing" carried out at her London home because she had fallen in love with the wrong man.
Banaz Mahmod, 20, was subjected to the 2-1/2 hour ordeal before she was garroted with a bootlace. Her body was stuffed into a suitcase and taken about 100 miles to Birmingham where it was buried in the back garden of a house.
Her badly decomposed body was found in April 2006, three months after the killing.
Last month a jury found her father Mahmod Mahmod, 52, and his brother Ari Mahmod, 51, guilty of murder after a three-month trial. Their associate Mohamad Hama, 30, had earlier admitted killing her.
On Thursday at a pre-sentence hearing for Hama, the Old Bailey heard details about Banaz's last moments.
Prosecutors said the three convicted men, along with two other suspects who are still at large, had carried out the killing fearing that the authorities were closing in on them.
They believed Banaz had brought shame on the family by leaving her husband, an Iraqi Kurd she had been forced to marry at 17, and falling in love with Rahmat Suleimani, an Iranian Kurd.
Her former unnamed partner had raped her as well as repeatedly beating her, the court heard.
Hama, who prosecutors said had been a ringleader in the murder, was caught by listening devices talking to a friend in prison about the murder.
In the recordings, transcripts of which were relayed to the court, Hama and his friend are hearing laughing as he described how she was killed with Banaz's uncle "supervising".
"I was kicking and stamping on her neck to get the soul out. I saw her stark naked, only wearing pants or underwear," Hama is recorded as saying.
His lawyers say there is no evidence to support the prosecution's claims.
The decision to kill her came after a meeting on January 23 -- the day before she was murdered -- when the family decided to take action before the police could foil their attempts, said prosecutor Victor Temple.
Hama is due to be sentenced on Friday with Mahmod Mahmod and his brother, Ari.
This is one of those areas where Western Civilization has a lot to
offer the Islamic world. We don't do this to our daughters.
So, what do we do? Talk this out with them? Explain to them
why it was wrong to stomp on the girl's neck and that they are very
naughty boys and mustn't ever do this again, no sir?
This is how they live, this is their world. We are fighting
tribal barbarians with psychotic ideas about honor who show no
compunctions about killing their own daughters to avoid shame.
They don't understand diplomacy, you idiots. They understand
bullets, so let's give it to them before this happens again. This
is the Islam we are fighting, not the happy religion of peace that we
hear about on TV and that I am sure exists somewhere (I really am sure
it does, despite my rancor).
And this is where liberals will always fall flat. Because they
talk about women's rights and they talk about peace and they talk about
all these wonderful things -- but when the time comes to stand up and
eradicate the evils they decry, they balk. They shirk their
responsibility and argue in favor of doing nothing, and I can't for the life of me understand why.
Talk. Talk yourselves to death, they don't care. A culture that believes in this sort of thing is one that believes only the weak talk about their problems. The strong realize their will by force or threat of force.
This happened in England, damn it.
Comments
Have you ever read a US paper? Do you live in the US? This happens all the f'ing time here - for different reasons and with different means but almost always by a "Christian" American.
If that is what this is really about, why haven't you pressed for the army to come home and wage the war here.
But wait, this rubbish has absolutely nothing to do with the "war on terror". If you really want to learn about how the shame system works in a muslim country I recommend stepping beyond the pale of periodicals.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
I can't believe I just read that!
The shame system is bunk, cultural trash that has been left on our Islamic neighbor's lawn. This tribal custom is savage and inexcusable, and it will only be dealt with when moderate Muslims are supported enough to quell the destructive urges of their more radical co-religionists. Who's going to do that?
Did I assert that America is officially No-Rape Land? Nope, far from it. Did I assert that rape was a Muslim trait? No again. Did I assert that this particular behavior is absolutely unacceptable, and that it must be dealt with? Yes and yes.
Show me another culture that does this, and I will agitate for their destruction or their compliance with Western standards of decent behavior.
The War on Terror is about so much more than oil rights, avenging Sept. 11th, national security or a president's legacy. It is the next chapter in the civilizational conflict between the West and Islam which has been with us since Mohammed took Mecca.
I shall choose to believe the Queen was not amused by my bellicose rhetoric, and wished to caution me about judging others. However, I do believe that value judgments are ours to make within the framework of our moral system, and I have made mine.
The "Queen" engaged in moral relativism in which she equated honor killings with letting our daughters dress provocatively. Yeah, they're the same.
So's your Queen.
Neither do most Malaysian Muslims. You have nothing to offer us in this sense. What you offer here is basically the prejudicial thought that Islam is to be blamed for some nutjob and his family killing his wife.
And that, is sick, Scio.
They do understand diplomacy. Otherwise, you wouldn't get along well with Turkey, and, once again, this is not Islam you are arguing about. It is ancient Middle Eastern tradition predating Islam. Think I've mentioned it before either on your blog or Ted's.
It is not a kind of Islam, as you put it right there. And as for the blame unto liberals, I've heard more liberals speak out for Muslim women than I do conservatives.
As far as I know, certain conservative members of the US government still insist on doing nothing for women in Saudi Arabia who aren't even allowed to drive a car.
That is absurd, and - given the thrust of your argument - hypocritical.
The wrong by western standards is the killing and rape. Means and reasons are of lower importance in our system with law being the primary and absolute determinant of what is a crime. You should be paying careful attention to that distinction in this post especially since you are arguing that a "shame and honor based" culture is inferior to a "guilt and law based" culture.
Furthermore, you use this example of a crime to illuminate us about the inner workings of a culture and thereby justify that culture's eradication. That is where it all falls apart. You have made a logical error by defining a total culture through the actions of a few criminals. That does not stand up, and so your entire argument falls down, falling short of the very same western standards that you claim to hold dear.
I was trying to point that out to you. I suppose I was not obvious enough. Let us try again: Men in this country kill and rape women also. That is the crime by our moral and legal standards. And so if you are going to use this case to justify our present military action, you also need to judge American culture by the same standard.
A-man, those last two paragraphs are even more outrageous than what you said the last time we had our difficulties. Absolutely baseless.
And Scio, I can't be participating in this stuff because of idiots like Henrietta who has now twice made the enormous leap that you've used this to justify a war. Moronic, and I'm done.
But when they see the Taliban, noo...those women are oppressed....
Ted says:
Scio had written:
Ted, you should improve your reading comprehension.
"The" Islam is the same Islam that moderate Muslims are against. As usual, because I identify the problem as elements within Islam (which exists as a political framework in a way that Christianity does not) over-sensitive types begin cautioning me against bigotry. It's tired.
Well Aput, you tell me what religion they are, you tell me what tribal culture they come from, and you tell me why we cannot eliminate that specific aspect of their culture by promoting Western values. Because I sure don't view that as a sweeping attack on Islam, but on Islamic tribal idiots who carried this out in London...the implication here is that they are bringing this backward practice into the West, and they can only be doing so because they believe their culture to be superior to their chosen home. They are exporting the very sort of Islam that you and your Malaysians claim to be against. Use sense, the post was not a general salvo against Islam. I'm not so stupid as to lump all Muslims in with these damn transplanted goatherds. What they did is brazenly anti-Western, these men deserve death for their crime, and we are the ones who must teach them that they are in error.
And Henesua, when was the last time your political ideals accomplished anything of significance with these people? Bear in mind that I am not talking about the Middle East in general, I'm talking about people who practice honor killings. The short answer is that your ilk yammer on about human rights to a bunch of ignorant peasants who don't listen because they have contempt for the very philosophy upon which our civilization is based. They don't respect diplomacy, because they have nothing to bring to the table...they can only lose what they value. And what they value is worth being removed from human experience.
Dumb. Rape and murder are not considered a viable resolution to a dispute over honor in the American tribal system. Rather, because we have laws which go beyond familial disputes and take precedence over them, we are able to prosecute rape for its own sake and leave justice in the hands of those who can best administer it. To compare a long-held, sanctioned practice among tribesmen to an American anything is ludicrous.
So to sum, don't attempt to paint my statements as anti-Islamic. They are anti-honor killings, and these happen within an Islamic framework. It is not the framework I am attacking, but this decayed little branch of it. Everyone here is a little bit slow tonight. I mean really. I thought I could make a post about honor killings and everyone would be like, "Yeah Scio, they suck." But since I mentioned the fact that a liberal is the 7th century Muslim's best friend, everyone got all uppity about nothing.
If the religion is to blame for allowing this, then why don't we address that? I mean, as a Catholic I've certainly had to put up with worse because some priests molested some boys, but I've been able to discuss that with the detractors because I know that pederasty is not a tenet of my religion. So if you're Muslim, keep it in perspective and don't get offended.
I don't even know where to go with this...I'm tired.
Other than that, we're still talking about honor-killings, not burqas and permission to drive.
You know I couldn't leave you like this.
A-man, you may be a good Muslim, but that doesn't, apparently, make you immune to insanity if you think liberal lip-service is going to do anything for Saudi women, and did I understand you to dismiss what the Taliban did to women and what's been done -for- them by Republicans?
George Bush is responsible for freeing more women from Islamic slavery than anyone else in modern history,and Republicans don't have to continually be saying something, since what they have accomplished speaks for itself.
So get this straight - liberals talk... that's all they do. Well, that and ignore things and leave it for future Presidents to deal with.
You know, I haven't labeled you a liberal yet, but we all know where your unfounded sympathies lie.
And Henrietta, as usual, it's your comprehension, not mine that's the problem, since in case you didn't know it, we've already been engaged in a war for years now, and none of it had anything to do with avenging honor killings. You misunderstood Scio and now me. And that's why I can't be polite to you and the other idiots in your liberal lineage - you misunderstand virtually all you see, hear, and read, and then you go off on a tangent from there...
They are exporting the very sort of Islam that you and your Malaysians claim to be against.
There you go again! It's not Islamic, it's Arabic. There's a difference.
I never dismissed what the Taliban did. But if we insist on looking into women's rights, the Taliban learned what they learned from the Saud's as well.
No, it's not safe to say that. In fact, we're not even going to talk about that since you're the one who thinks liberals offer salvation.
Do you think we'd be in Afghanistan today if Gore were President? If you do, you're more delusional than I could have imagined.
And why would I care where the Taliban got their evil from? They refined it and expanded it until it was as hideous a cult as any that has existed. We short-circuited that, and we toppled another beast in Iraq. Do you want to deny or minimize any of that? Because the more you say, the more irrited I get that you would push false impressions and misinformation.
I won't deny that the Taliban refined it to a hideous cult. However, the expansions rests solely on Saudi Arabia. And there are no false impressions nor misinformation when I say that Saudi Arabia are the largest exporters of terrorism.
Think I gave Scio the link when he asked for the Arabic translation for jackass, which, if my own Arabic is good enough, is translated as "hamar" in Roman characters.
Interesting publication....scio, we live with that sort of crap daily, from all walks, the culture here has many strange quirks.
We, as a society, are often too quick to assume that our morals and standards are always right while those who differ from us are always wrong. No society is perfect and we will do well to remember that.
I have muslim cousins, and they are wonderful people. One of their sisters married a Christian and nobody killed her or bombed her husband's church. As the author of this blog clearly points, certain elements of Islamic extremism need to be changed by Western culture.
Bu no means am I suggesting a "change" in doctrine; I'm referring to simple, basic, civilized behaviour. That's all we ask for. The author of this blog occasionally comes across as harsh, but the fact of the matter is many religious extremists live in the West and still carry out these unacceptable barbaric acts and think they can get away with it.
NOW, rape is common in the West. Probably more common than in Muslim countries. The issue here is the REASON. If someone randomly got raped and killed on the way back from work, it is VERY different from two men raping and gruesomely murdering their own family member BECAUSE she... I'll let you finish that.
I disagree, certain elements of tribal and cultural extremism need to be changed by the Muslim culture. We can try and force laws and beliefs on anyone but in the end they have to be willing to accept them for it to work.
The Peaceful Muslim culture doesnt want our interference nor our western influence (which isnt so great in the first place) so its up to them to change the extreme elements within thier own culture.
At one time in the US we branded and tortured woman who were considered harlots, we forced our daughters to marry whom thier parents chose, we treated woman as little more then a piece of property. We changed from within, were changed by our own outrage at our own ancient customs. I think for the Muslim culture it has to change much the same way. They have to do it. The change has to come from within, it has to come from the Peaceful Muslim World.
If thats considered non-interventionism, then so be it.
Not to be picayune and pedantic, but who exactly was gonna change us if we didn't change ourselves?
And regarding your, I guess,, main point, lot's of cultures have been changed from without, or was it the peaceful Japanese who decided to end the war and play baseball?
Non-intervention can take a thousand years - massive devastation only one...
All we're talking about here is just civilized behaviour and not so much about change.
You're right in saying that the change must come from within, but how many Muslim leaders have come out to speak against these despicable acts. Look at Iraq and Sudan, for example. We're talking about muslim-on-muslim killing. A theme of violence that extends from inner-rivalry to the greater enemies, such as America.
Muslim leaders need to take some responsibility for these acts.
No one, that’s the point, no one could and no one would, it was solely in our own hands. It’s blatantly apparent by the many Muslim comments ive seen in vox and also other blog sites and forums that our intervention isn’t appreciated or wanted even by many of those who claim to belong to the Peaceful element of Muslims, you can’t help people who don’t want help. Sad as it is that is a fact of life.
Ha-ha, nice try on the Japan comment, but our issues with the Japan wasn’t due to cultural or religious beliefs nor have we tried to influence that. Our issue with them was strategic. They saw us as a threat strategically and economically and decided they would topple us first so they could take our place, we decided they were wrong and made sure it was a lesson they would never forget.
Although I will give you one point, if our leaders of the present took lessons from some of our leaders of the past we wouldn’t be having a war based on cultural differences, we would be having a strategic war which already would have been won.
Im not a complete non-interventionist, i just don’t believe in intervention when it comes to religious and cultural beliefs, but if it’s strategically necessary then I don’t have a problem with it.
Antoine,
True, but if anything we should be forcing the Peaceful Muslim leaders to take a stand, not taking it for them. If we take the stand for them, then they will never take the stand thierselves, they will always depend on someone else to do it.
It was a long horrible bloody battle in this country, so why do we expect it to be different in other countries? Id agree we should be offering support, i just dont think we should be fighting thier fights for them, not when it comes to cultural differences.
Scio, you're getting hammered because again, you're using indirect speech. It's so glaringly obvious that you have a bias against Muslims and liberals. You hide the Muslim bias well, but why else would you write such a scathing post?
The liberal stereotype is really unfair. I have some very very dear freinds who are in the Army and Navy. I'm proud of them. I live in MA and work in the animal field and practice Paganism and Buddhism. Trust me, I know more liberals in my neighborhood than you will know in your entire life. Stop generalizing.
Far leftists and far rightists both have these unrealistic ideals that will never come to fruition. If we don't talk nicely to each other (THAT MEANS EVERYONE) there's going to be a civil war and America will collapse.
My grandma used to say, if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. As far as I'm concerned, that means you should have done a better job balancing your post to show some good things that Muslims have done.
Yes, the post was against a heinous crime. But between your far right-wing blog and your far-right religious views, it doesn't take a genius to realize that you're kinda picking on Muslims.
No disrespect intended. :)
I do have a bias, but that doesn't mean I have to "balance" my statement. How do you balance a critique of honor killings? I mean, could I outline the more humane methods of carrying out one of these things?
I think you're being silly with your talk of bias and balance.
Do you see what I meant? Not Islam, the type of Islam, the practice of this form of Islam...I could go on.
I advocate change from within. But as Aput will tell you, there is a lot of pressure on moderate Muslims to remain silent. It is not beyond possibility that they would be murdered for speaking out. In that sense, change can only come if it is supported by outsiders who are not subject to being murdered in their beds.
If they can't, we must. It's that simple, because this sort of thing is unacceptable for us to tolerate in another culture. It is simply a crime against the very humanity of their victims, and the universal rights that we believe apply to all people call us to intervene on the behalf of those who cannot defend themselves.
You shouldn't strive to embrace moral relativism...it's hollow, devoid of real substance. It's philosophically dishonest. Pick a side! You must. If it's against the traditional mores and ideals of your culture, so be it, but pick one so that you know where you stand and so that we may dispense with all the polite talk.
Though you are right in noting that I don't mind criticism of my own beliefs, I think you and I must agree that there are cultural aspects which are not acceptable to Western concepts of human rights - religious or secular - and must be dealt with decisively. To do otherwise betrays an effective apathy.
That's fine.
Of course I think that "honor killings" are hideous. I guess that's my objection; when you choose that story, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Too easy. But you said it straight out, you object to some aspects of the Muslim world. That's as honest as you can get. Fair enough.
You mean to tolerate these cultures in the West.
I would think it more to do with the law of the land instead of going into culture. I mean, there are a lot of cultural things that offend all of us from time to time, but as long as it's lawful, there shouldn't be any objections.
In the issue of honor killings, this Arabic tradition (not Islamic) is sickening and definitely wrong. So is infanticide in India whenever they find out they're about to get a baby girl. So is the practice of sending orphaned kids to sort out needles for recycling (India), exposing them to HIV. So is the act of stoning to death for adultery (Afghanistan, Iraq, most of the Middle East), as part of Sharia Law. So is the act of using orphans to make carpets (Egypt and Turkey).
Obviously there are a lot of things in most cultures that the West cannot accept about the East. But then, they don't export these to the West, like they did in this honor killing case.
I guess it's just that, I can't see why Muslims are being singled out. You're a Catholic, right? But I didn't see any criticism on your blog of Catholic priests who raped children, or of other people claiming to be Catholic who committed atrocious crimes. Maybe you did speak out at one time or another, but just like the Muslim communtiy, just one time did not make much of a difference.
If you or any other Catholic does not spend a great deal of their time speaking out over Catholic extremists or criminals who call themselves Catholic, it's probably due to one of two reasons:
1. They are criminals. So you don't consider yourself affiliated with them, because you and your community do not act like that. Well, Muslims probably feel the same way. Many of them say that they grew up as Muslims and it was taught to them in a nonviolent way. So just like you, they don't see themselves as part of the problem.
2. Because "real Catholics" don't behave that way. Just because they call themselves Catholic does not make them so. Well I've heard the same thing from my Muslim friends. Their religion is not based in violence, only the people who interpret it that way are violent. So the same thing goes; if nutjobs like Timothy McVeigh for example say that Jesus told him to commit acts of terror, should Christians have to spend the rest of their life begging nutjobs to stop?
You are correct in stating that many aspects of their culture are not acceptable to our standards of human rights. Honor killing is abhorrent. So is slavery. These are practices that our culture will never embrace.
Oh, wait a sec...........
I would think that if Muslims were truly offended by the actions of these backwards people they would do something about it...the lack of action bespeaks at worst an acceptance of --and at best an inability to change-- the situation.
Good try, but nobody in the pews was covering for the priests. That came from liberal bishops who were covering their own cassocks after relaxing the standards following Vatican II. People were outraged and spoke up about it. Many are still outraged.
I really don't see how we can compare the two and go much further. Honestly, is it so hard to say conclusively that we have a responsibility to fight against this sort of thing? America's been doing it since we took out the Barbary Pirates. Why stop now if it's right?
History says that America went over and knocked some pirate teeth down some pirate throats. It also says that slavery was a contested issue from the get-go, which is why American slavery wasn't quite as bad a deal as South American or African Muslim slavery. Unfortunately, the right thing wasn't done immediately in America, and I suppose conservatives will hear about it for the rest of time whenever we want to take on a human rights issue. Even though it was the Democrats all along. Harrumph.
I see your point, but say our intervention works, and we do right the wrongs and stop the inhumane actions like those above. What is to keep it from going right back like it was once we are done intervening? If those involved are to afraid to speak out now, wont those same people be to afraid to stand up and defend the change thats been made once we are gone?
As for the murdering in the beds, so its ok if we die for them, when they are not even willing to die for thier beliefs themselves?
Ive said before, i agree we should support but there comes a time when everyone has to stand up for what they believe and be willing to face the consequences no matter how dire. Its time for that now when it comes to the Modern Muslim.
You've decided that, have you? I got news, even when Americans were standing up to the British crown, they didn't face the brutality Muslims face, and even then, half of Americans wanted to remain British subjects.
"What is to keep it from going right back like it was once we are done intervening?"
Nothing. And you think that's an excuse for risking genocide? More news, that's not even a risk - it will happen. Even if we're aren't going to stay in Iraq forever, now is not the time for pulling out, not when people who actually know things are seeing real signs of progress. Did you read what Col. Peters had to say today?
"If those involved are to afraid to speak out now, wont those same people be to afraid to stand up and defend the change thats been made once we are gone? "
Do you have any idea how convoluted that is? Here's what you've said: "even if you're frightened to death, you'd better stand up now because it'll be worse later... unless you want to revert to the way things were before. Nothing will have changed, but at least you'll stand a better chance of living."
"so its ok if we die for them, when they are not even willing to die for thier beliefs themselves?"
No, it never was, but that isn't the issue. You've made a gross and irresponsible generalization since people actually are changing loyalties as they get fed up with the violence and realize that we're at least the far lesser of two evils in their eyes.
And you don't put an arbitrary time limit on the conversion. Our military knows this, why don't you? Especially when Iraq is so strategically important in terms of future security for ourselves and the Middle East?
It's beyond shocking how people are willing to turn a blind eye to likely genocide, and most especially when it's the actions they advocate that will breatly contribute to, and even precipitate, it.
Americans did stand up to the British Crown didnt they, at the risk of thier lives. Its not like they are over there on thier own facing persecution and we are over here watching. We are in the middle of it and trying to stop it. We cant do it on our own, we to have at least a portion of the modern muslims support, for our soldiers safety and theirs. Its not like this started just yesterday, it started way before we even went into iraq as you well know. Its been going on for years, so tell me when is it ok to expect modern muslims to step forward... after the war is over?
"Here's what you've said: "even if you're frightened to death, you'd better stand up now because it'll be worse later... unless you want to revert to the way things were before. Nothing will have changed, but at least you'll stand a better chance of living."
No thats not exactly what i said. Since you didnt seem to comprehend it, possibly due to my wording, i'll rephrase it.
They have to learn to stand on thier own two feet and face those who are trying to force them into submission. They have our support now, so they should be using it. A time will come when the US has to pull the majority of its troops out of Iraq, when that time comes, if they are still to afraid to stand up, then they will lose everything we have helped them gain and we will be strategically out in the cold.
"No, it never was, but that isn't the issue. You've made a gross and irresponsible generalization since people actually are changing loyalties as they get fed up with the violence and realize that we're at least the far lesser of two evils in their eyes."
According to what im hearing from the ground in Iraq, yes some of the tribal leaders are finally starting to change thier positions and are encouraging thier followers to fight back. What has that got to do with this discussion? Thier change of position has nothing to do with changing religious and cultural beliefs and everything to do with self preservation. If anything that supports my position. We are not there to change thier cultural and tribal beliefs, we are there offering them the freedom and protection to do it thierselves.
And you don't put an arbitrary time limit on the conversion. Our military knows this, why don't you? Especially when Iraq is so strategically important in terms of future security for ourselves and the Middle East?
I didnt want to get into all of the issues surrounding the war in Iraq but since you brought it up..
Talk about gross overgeneralizations and misconceptions. Its possible perhaps you have been dealing with to many anti-military extreme left moonbats but i still would of thought you would known better then to jump to conclusions like the one you just made.
Strategic is the key word in that very wrong misguided comment you wrote. My view on the iraq war has nothing to do with cultural or religious beliefs and everything to do with strategy and whats best for our country. I feel for the Iraq people and what they have been through, but the fact of the matter is we cant solve everyones cultural problems, so we have to concentrate on those that are the most strategic to us. Iraq unfortunately falls into that catagory.
The reason things are looking up in Iraq from a military perspective is because our President finally listened to our Generals and realized you cant solve cultural differences and religious issues by intefering and our military is not there to be a buffer in those issues. They are there to win, by whatever means neccessary, freedom for all iraqis simply because its in United States best interest that happens. Now if he would loosen the reins a little more and let our soldiers do what they have been trained to do, we could get this war over with and start helping the iraqis with a free future where THEY can freely and without fear face down those within thier own culture who use those inhumane tribal practices.
And just for the record if its not apparent already, i completely support this war and have since the beginning. I support it because its in the strategic best interest of the US for Iraq to be free. I also believe a pullout at this early date could possibly be one of the most strategic mistakes the US could ever make, what i will not support is a war that is based on interfereing in other countries cultural and religious practices because its a no win situation for the US.
Who's this "they" to whom you refer, as if they are monolithic?
But OK, though it wasn't apparent originally, I'm glad we're on the same side. Invading Iraq always was the right thing to do and it remains so. And I think we agree that we can't stay there and suffer death by a thousand cuts - that stepping up activities against the enemy was necessary and should have been done years earlier.
And yes, you have it exactly right, I am used to hearing a lot of nonsense from liberal scum, but now it's become worse than that. They are perfectly willing to sacrifice innocent Iraqis to get what they perceive as a win - the withdrawal of troops, and the sad irony is that if we did that, everybody loses except the enemy.
So my apologies for any misunderstanding, but I thought you were one of those who were saying, "Look at all the civilians we killed," and are now saying, "Screw the rest of them."
Let's be careful when we start to talk bigotry. I think that we can define bigotry as an unwarranted discrimination against an undeserving party. Discrimination in and of itself is not bigotry. Making a value judgment on a specific aspect of a culture is not bigotry. In this case, I will assert...strenuously...that my Western values are superior to the tribal culture of these men which allowed them to kill a member of their own family to preserve "honor." Anyone who disagrees with this assertion runs the risk of being called a damn coward.
with anything less than,
A post that describes "[those whom we are fighting as] tribal barbarians" has not led far from it's initial assumption i.e. that we should be over in Iraq and Afghanistan, using the bullet to get our point across. In fact, it has encouraged more broad generalisations.
Of course, this sort of killing is shocking and terrible. We all agree. What is more shocking to me, is that so much horror is being done on civilians over in another country, initiated by events which have no bearing at all on the invasion and destabilization of another country, which has led to untold misery. The invasions are spurred on by hate spewing bigots and is a far cry from this gruesome act you describe here. If I were so inclined, i might unearth gruesome detail of rape, torture, assault, by those whom you regard as heroes in the cause of western freedom. Your war is groundless, and harks back to the crusades.
If I may quote from your post "this is happening in England, damnit". Exactly! So why the heck are you searching out these tribal barbarians over there in Afghanistan and Iraq? Bullet and tank diplomacy will never drive home your opinion that your culture is superior to another. While you are at it, can you define "western civilization" and the "islamic world"?
Because if they are doing this in England, that means they are exporting it. That is not acceptable. Simply not acceptable. Since it is within our power to do something about it, we should.
I am not one to label all soldiers heroes. While I appreciate their work and the sacrifice they make for me, I think the "hero" moniker is overused. Regardless, the individual failings of soldiers sent to correct an institutional wrong (radical Islamic terrorism) are not relevant.
It does indeed hearken back to the Crusades, but one must ask why the Crusaders made the trip in the first place. Contrary to popular misconception, it was not simply to take back the Holy Land. Nor was it because the Crusaders were intolerant of Islam.
The real reason for the Crusades lies in the political situation of Byzantium, the rapid, militaristic Muslim expansion (overtaking Christian lands), and the closing of pilgrimage routes by the Muslim rulers of the Holy Land. The Byzantine Emperor asked for assistance from the West and he got more than he actually wanted. However, the armies of the Empire had not been able to stop Muslim expansion towards Constantinople.
So the Crusaders came, they retook Jerusalem, expelled the Muslims and then completely unraveled over the next century or so. The initial aim of the Crusading armies was to address wrongs done to Christianity by expansionist Islam.
Believe what you want, though.
Those morals and philosophies borrowing from Ancient Greek and Roman ideas of government, tending towards the democratic or republican. Additionally, concepts of universal human rights, the dignity and equality of all men (if not in station, then in said dignity). Generally a liberal mindset when compared to the rest of the world, it is in contrast to
Which is those areas that have been united by their common religion, Islam. Islam, unlike the dominant Western religion of Christianity, functions as a political system. Western civilization has effectively delineated borders for religion and government, while there is no such line in Islamic law. Though Islamic countries may have adopted Western ideas about separation of Church and state, they did not originate within a Muslim framework.
Hence, we can say that the West has influenced the Islamic world for the better, and may continue to do so. Being a Westerner, I would not expect a Muslim to agree that my culture offers a superior vehicle for the development of the person and for universal human rights. But being a Westerner I know that Muslim to be wrong.
And if we are speaking again of tribal hill-dwellers...who knows if they are even observant Muslims?
The thing with Islam is that we see it as a way of life, which is why the whole separation of church and state has never been true in our sense. But the thing is, like Scio points out, not all Muslims are observant. For example, we can look at the fact that Muhammad once said that dhimmis are to be given back their money if the Muslim pledge to cater for their safety is in any way revoked.
This rule was not observed in any case of the Abbasid dynasty, when Spain was under threat and the Muslims simply told the Jews who were dhimmis to get out.
There are many examples of how the Muslim world has erred from it's ways. I'm sure Christianity is not all that innocent either in their pursuit of 'national interests'. But then, for the convenience of the human soul, whatever is done in national interest is somehow not on the hands of Christian decision makers, due to the separation of church and state, no doubt.
How can you say that soldiers who go about killing innocent people like in the case of Haditha, irrelevant, because they're there to right another wrong?!
Wrong is still wrong, Scio, and I doubt that any army that follows the misdeeds of the offenders will come out anything other than wrong themselves.
"Kill the mushriqeen where ever you find them.” [Al-Qur’an 9:5]
Personally id like to hear a good explanation of that one, besides the old its used in battle argument because wether its used in battle or not, it still says to kill non-believers.
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." (Al-Quran, Chapter 9:5)
It still says slay the pagans, find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait unless they repent. (pagan being any non-believers)
To a peaceful Muslim its tied up in history and the battle happening at the time. To a Muslim who feels his religion is slipping away due to western influences and his very way of life (his belief system) is threatened, that verse and the verses surrounding it can take on a whole new meaning.
If you're looking for peace you find peace, if you're looking for anger you find anger. Think it's the same for all religions, which is why Bill Maher keeps speaking of regulating it before it gets extreme.
He's quite right (as in correct, bloody lefty) in that sense.
Thank you Aput. And isn't it sad how people will spend their whole lives looking to verify a false belief? Every religious text has symbolic language which can be interpreted literally as something violent or extreme. Even if it were literal, any normal Muslim can look at the text and say "I'm not going to ever act on violence".
I think it's OBSCENE that Muslim's are all being painted with the same brush here. It's not your professed religion that matters, it's your actions. There are violent people in every religion. If some proclaimed Muslims decide to use the text of the Koran as an excuse for violence, that's no excuse to pick on all Muslims.
Clean up your own house first, then point fingers.
I dont watch or read political talking heads for the right or left, to me they are extreme one way or the other.
As for the rest Id agree, when it comes to religious scripture regardless of what religion peoples personal bias and predjudices always play a role in what meaning they get out of verses.
Im not familiar with Maher so i hope he was kidding or being sarcastic. Every time we try to regulate something to fix it, we regulate our personal freedom on that issue right out of existance.
They are exporting this trash to London. It is equivalent to a neighbor dumping garbage over my fence. Now I don't know about you, but simply talking about that sort of thing rarely yields results. There must be the threat of taking your neighbor to Judge Alex, or Judge Mathis (I prefer the latter, he has such an interesting personality.). So, you go to your neighbor's yard, you take legal action and bada-bing. We are doing the same with radical Islam. It's no good to just talk at them, you have to back it up with force and USE it when they don't comply.
;) Badabing. Is that a legal term? LOL Wait, Johnny Carson? You just had to stump my memory, didn't you? ;)
***Sigh*** Of course we have to "defeat" the terrorists. Do you think I want my sister or mom or other loved ones getting "blowed up"? But there's a difference between working on a problem and obsessing on it, Scio. People who worry themselves about terrorism 24 / 7 should either be in the military or in therapy.
It's a hidden agenda and you know it. Like I said, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Point to the terrorists, then point to Muslims. That way you can hate a whole group of people with a seemingly good reason.
I know you're not a hateful person, Scio. But this constant criticism of religions who don't fit your wolrdview is excessive. It's also dull. Want to be shocking? Say something nice about people who are different from you.
Look, my blog may discuss this issue much more than I actually do. I spend most of my day working, most of my night relaxing. I'd hardly call it an obsession...just a consistent viewpoint. I haven't changed it and I present evidence that reinforces my beliefs.
As I've said, the Islamic religion of the people in question is secondary to their actions. It's like saying pederasty is a Catholic belief because some homosexual priests went after some teenage boys.
I don't believe I've criticized many other religions besides Islam...the one most deserving of it right now. But to be called dull...well that wounds me more than any liberal ever has.
Prepare thyself. I shall unleash my fury upon a different religion in my next major post.
;) I'm not saying you're dull, silly goose. I'm saying that the far right harping on Islam is so old. Why don't we try something different, like being trivial? (I mean nice. LOL)
Looking forward to you next post, Scio man. ;)