This is a still from a video that surfaced today reportedly showing the honor killing of a woman "accused" by some ISIS retards of committing adultery. Apparently she was begging her father not to stone her but he just declared his allegiance to Allah and ignored her.
At this point in the vid, she had been bound by her own father and made to stand in this hole, after which the ISIS goons started throwing rocks at her and finally her father kills her with a really large rock.
It is estimated that 20,000 honor killings of women take place in Muslim, and some non-Muslim countries around the world every year, yet we are asked by our superiors to regard this barbaric cult of savages as morally equal to Christianity.....different, but equal.
And don't tell me, "Uh Ed, their beautiful religion has been high-jacked by radicals who don't represent the larger body of Islam."
Did you not hear me? 20,000 murders each year of women in every Islamic country around the world.....every one of them accompanied by illiterate savages in dirty nightshirt shrieking "Allahu Akbar!". If so-called moderate Muslims aren't the ones committing these atrocities, then they are complicit with their passive silence.
16 comments:
The United States used 350 tons of DU munitions in Iraq during the 1991 war, and 1,200 tons during its 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation.
.
Contamination from depleted uranium (DU) munitions is causing sharp rises in congenital birth defects, cancer cases and other illnesses.
.
DU contamination is also connected to the emergence of diseases that were not previously seen in Iraq, such as new illnesses in the kidney, lungs and liver, as well as total immune system collapse.
.
DU contamination may also be connected to the steep rise in leukemia, renal and anemia cases, especially among children, being reported throughout many Iraqi governorates.
.
There has also been a dramatic jump in miscarriages and premature births among Iraqi women, particularly in areas where heavy US military operations occurred, such as Fallujah during 2004, and Basra during the 1991 US war on Iraq.
.
Which, then, is the greater atrocity, Ed, American use of DU munitions or Muslim honor killings?
Are you seriously defending honor stonings of Muslim women, Isaac? Because it sounds like it.
Not at all. I am, however, seriously puzzled as to why someone who is not a Muslim, not even a Middle-Easterner, would leapfrog over the atrocities DONE IN HIS NAME by his own government and, instead, obsesses over Muslim honor killings.
And why he pretends that only Muslims are guilty of the centuries-old practice when, according to Widney Brown, advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, the practice of honor killing "goes across cultures and across religions*."[1]
[1]Mayell, Hillary. "Thousands of Women Killed for Family "Honor"". National Geographic.
*Bangladesh
Brazil
Ecuador
Egypt
Egypt
France
Germany
Great Britain
India
Israel
Italy
Jordan
Jordan
Lebanon
Morocco
Morocco
Pakistan
Pakistan
Sweden
the Syrian Arab Republic
Turkey
Turkey
Uganda.
Yemen and other Mediterranean and Persian Gulf countries
Yeah, thousands ARE killed for "honor", and all of them I'd bet by their Muslim families in the name of Islam. They don't care which country they happen to be collecting welfare in at the time their daughter acted like a whore by getting gang-raped?
"...and all of them I'd bet by their Muslim families...."
I wouldn't bet the grocery money, if I were you.
Once again I have let you turn our discussion from the more important to the less important. (Will I ever learn?)
The issue I need help understanding is why are you so exercised over something that is none of your freakin' business (Muslim honor killings) and so disinterested in those things which cry out for your opprobrium(U.S. atrocities)?
Isaac, US "atrocities" are imminently debatable. Honor killings are straight up murder and 20,000 of them, if that number is correct, is worthy of our attention and outrage.
That said, if the US is committing atrocities somewhere, that also is worthy of our attention and outrage. But you get into a gray area when you consider, does the US have a role to play around the world, or should we just exist alone in every way except economic?
Everybody expects the US alone to come riding to the rescue when natural disasters strike with money, food, medicine, aid, whet ever, all at our own expense. And I think that gives us some right to impose our way of thinking when they don't behave in a civilized way. (This is how most of our government official see things)
Me? I am of the opinion that maybe we shouldn't rush to save the day when disaster strikes. What good does it do us? IT rarely buys us any good will politically, these countries continue to hate us regardless. I don't think it's bad for us to give billions in aid, usually almost alone, and not expect some good behavior that benefits us in return.
Let me see if I understand you correctly, Ed. The U.S. has ruined the lives of millions of innocent people, most of them not even born yet, for at least 4.5 billion years into the future (the half-life of U-238) and you are saying that it is "debatable" whether that is an atrocity. Have I accurately stated your position?
Heh heh, um no. You're invoking 1945? Our little yellow friends sort of had that coming.
What about the axiom that says, those who have the ability to stop evil, have the responsibility to stop evil?
Would you have the US sit idly by while all manner of crimes against humanity take place? Sure, not all of our adventures have gone as planned and many were ill-advised to begin with, but I think for the most part, we've done what did for the right reasons.
I am referring to our use of depleted uranium munitions in Iraq and elsewhere, Ed (see original post), not the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.
(Little Boy used U-235, not U-238. The U-238 in Fat Man did not undergo fission, it was a reflector/tamper for the Pu-239.)
So back to he question at hand. Is the use of depleted uranium munitions an atrocity on the part of the U.S. or not?
Your contention is that the use of depleted Uranium ammunition condemns millions....millions you said, to ruin? We use depleted Uranium because it's very dense and penetrates such things as tank armor. You'd have to store a recovered round in your front pocket 24/7 in order for it to affect your life and then it would only be your fertility.
I think this argument is a stretch, even for you Isaac.
"You'd have to store a recovered round in your front pocket 24/7 in order for it to affect your life....'
"A DU shell bursts into flames as soon as it leaves the delivery device. When it hits a target, as much as 70 percent burns on impact at a high temperature, releasing into the air billions of invisible radioactive particles." (Excerpted from Depleted Uranium for Dummies)
Q. How far can those particles be spread by wind and water?
Q. What are the effects of those particles when ingested or inhaled?
Q. What are the effects of soil contaminated with those particles?
Q. Aren't the increased incidences of cancers and birth defects being seen in the Iraqi population (and Gulf War veterans) an atrocity?
Q. Who is responsible for that atrocity?
A: Don't know, but at some point they become background.
A: ingestion or inhalation damage is a function of concentration, therefor with time and distance, it goes down.
A: Who cares about the soil? It's a desert, they aren't growing anything there but poppies anyway.
A: You can't attribute disease rates to an unknown exposure. How many Iraqi's were in the vicinity of DU rounds? I'd bet very few.
A: what atrocity?
"what atrocity?"
“…these weapons have released deadly, carcinogenic and mutagenic, radioactive particles in such abundance that-whipped up by sandstorms and carried on trade winds - there is no corner of the globe they cannot penetrate…. For the wind has no boundaries and time is on their side: the radioactivity persists for over 4,500,000,000 years and can cause cancer, leukemia, brain damage, kidney failure, and extreme birth defects - killing millions of every age for centuries to come. A crime against humanity which may, in the eyes of historians, rank with the worst atrocities of all time.”
(James Denver, Horror Of US Depleted Uranium in Iraq Threatens World)
I think that's overstating it just a tad, don't you?
If all the nuclear weapons that have been tested, and dropped, in history haven't really had very many long lasting effects, I doubt some aerosolized DU rounds will do much.
"Who cares about the soil? It's a desert, they aren't growing anything there but poppies anyway. "
Very funny.
Post a Comment