http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/rape-victim-13-stoned-to-death-by-1000-men-in-stadium-14049717.html (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/rape-victim-13-stoned-to-death-by-1000-men-in-stadium-14049717.html)
for being raped!! :-X :-X
Jesus I almost threw up.
What c***ts.
A religion of peace my hole >:(
Great, a article about a sick bunch of barbarians,
therefore it must be alright to wage war against the Afghanis.
We have God on our side.
Feck off Main Street.
A crowd of f**king savages, and no mistake! It's got nothing to do with Afghans or anything else.
Ugh, I shuddered reading that. Animals! Pure barbarism!
You can imagine that whoever came up with that 'law' hated women. It reeks of centuries old backward thinking that women are at fault for giving men sexual urges and corrupting mens minds. As shallow as Atheism seems to me most of the time, its often looks like the only sane belief system around.
Quote from: Feckitt on November 10, 2008, 05:08:01 PM
Feck off Main Street.
A crowd of f**king savages, and no mistake! It's got nothing to do with Afghans or anything else.
As long as I read a stupid comment on this thread saying
"A religion of peace my hole", I will make my comments.
Read the comments made by people on the Belfast Tele article.
F*&kin animals. Makes me sick just reading it. WHat the hell is wrong with those people.
but main street your generalising there to an extent. to all outsiders we are murdering Irish scum who kill unarmed people. now we know thats not true :P
Sick sick sick.
shower of f**king cnuts, course if the yanks went in there and bombed the living sh.i out of them they'd be the worst in the world
Quote from: milltown row on November 10, 2008, 05:44:06 PM
but main street your generalising there to an extent. to all outsiders we are murdering Irish scum who kill unarmed people. now we know thats not true :P
It was true for as long as the British needed it to be true.
You would find from an investigation of media over 25 years that reporting was very controlled.
A certain image needs to be maintained in order to have enough public support for extreme government actions.
I have no doubt that this barbaric act has been inserted in NI media to increase /maintain islamaphobia at a time when the returning British Army regiment get flak and more innocent Afghanis are killed.
Deranged lunatics. Or maybe not - there won't be many young girls coming forward after being raped after this. What a sick society!
I can't believe what I just read
What is the governments around the world response to this?
Surely this can't be allowed
QuoteDeranged lunatics.
I think that sums it up.
I'm sure this poor girl wasnt the first victim and, sadly, won't be the last.
Blocked from getting the link. From the comments, thank for small mercies. God deleteted.
Quote from: Main Street on November 10, 2008, 07:15:31 PM
Quote from: milltown row on November 10, 2008, 05:44:06 PM
but main street your generalising there to an extent. to all outsiders we are murdering Irish scum who kill unarmed people. now we know thats not true :P
It was true for as long as the British needed it to be true.
You would find from an investigation of media over 25 years that reporting was very controlled.
A certain image needs to be maintained in order to have enough public support for extreme government actions.
I have no doubt that this barbaric act has been inserted in NI media to increase /maintain islamaphobia at a time when the returning British Army regiment get flak and more innocent Afghanis are killed.
but we cant come on here and call all Afghans barbaric, as the racists on here will call for America to go in and
"bombed the living sh.i out of them" which is confusing as the Brits are in there also, why not let them do it?
people looking in on us would claim we should get our own house in order before giving advice on what the americans should do.
Very sad story
What is all this talk of Afghans? It happened in Somalia.
Quote from: milltown row on November 10, 2008, 08:33:23 PM
Quote from: Main Street on November 10, 2008, 07:15:31 PM
Quote from: milltown row on November 10, 2008, 05:44:06 PM
but main street your generalising there to an extent. to all outsiders we are murdering Irish scum who kill unarmed people. now we know thats not true :P
It was true for as long as the British needed it to be true.
You would find from an investigation of media over 25 years that reporting was very controlled.
A certain image needs to be maintained in order to have enough public support for extreme government actions.
I have no doubt that this barbaric act has been inserted in NI media to increase /maintain islamaphobia at a time when the returning British Army regiment get flak and more innocent Afghanis are killed.
but we cant come on here and call all Afghans barbaric, as the racists on here will call for America to go in and "bombed the living sh.i out of them" which is confusing as the Brits are in there also, why not let them do it?
people looking in on us would claim we should get our own house in order before giving advice on what the americans should do.
are you implying i'm racist or are you just confused?
Quote from: magickingdom on November 10, 2008, 09:03:09 PM
Quote from: milltown row on November 10, 2008, 08:33:23 PM
Quote from: Main Street on November 10, 2008, 07:15:31 PM
Quote from: milltown row on November 10, 2008, 05:44:06 PM
but main street your generalising there to an extent. to all outsiders we are murdering Irish scum who kill unarmed people. now we know thats not true :P
It was true for as long as the British needed it to be true.
You would find from an investigation of media over 25 years that reporting was very controlled.
A certain image needs to be maintained in order to have enough public support for extreme government actions.
I have no doubt that this barbaric act has been inserted in NI media to increase /maintain islamaphobia at a time when the returning British Army regiment get flak and more innocent Afghanis are killed.
but we cant come on here and call all Afghans barbaric, as the racists on here will call for America to go in and "bombed the living sh.i out of them" which is confusing as the Brits are in there also, why not let them do it?
people looking in on us would claim we should get our own house in order before giving advice on what the americans should do.
are you implying i'm racist or are you just confused?
i dont know ya so i dont know, only you know that.
your just confused so..
confused about what?
Shocking stuff.
Quote from: AFS on November 10, 2008, 08:49:46 PM
Normally I wouldn't be one for conspiracies like this but it does seem strange that the BT chose to report on this story today, a week after it was dealt with by the rest of the world's media :-\
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7708169.stm
That's just because they're a bit slow.
Quote from: Main Street on November 10, 2008, 05:02:20 PM
Great, a article about a sick bunch of barbarians,
therefore it must be alright to wage war against the Afghanis.
We have God on our side.
Thats quite a leap by anyones standards.
I wouldn't be so sure of any story out of Somalia. Howden reported from South Africa, Zimbabwe, Congo, Somalia and other places in November. This is at least a second hand story from him.
Quote from: Main Street on November 10, 2008, 05:16:25 PM
Quote from: Feckitt on November 10, 2008, 05:08:01 PM
Feck off Main Street.
A crowd of f**king savages, and no mistake! It's got nothing to do with Afghans or anything else.
As long as I read a stupid comment on this thread saying
"A religion of peace my hole", I will make my comments.
Read the comments made by people on the Belfast Tele article.
"i dont think that this story has been published as it was. yes the islamic rule says that if a girl does sex without getting marry and its proved then it she should have been killed as this girl has been killed. publishing this story is just the matter of trying to turn the people against islam." Comment left on Tele website
This is much the same line as i hear from other muslims. Its all an evil plot to turn people against them. Similar to this bullshit of honour killings. The west doesn't understand. If i hold the view that it is not a religion of peace i am perfectly entitled to that view. I work with and listen to their views everyday and some of their views have shocked me and does not fall in with the "misundertood" theory.
Obviously this doesnt represent all muslims, i'm still waiting to meet the other type.
The people who committed this barbaric crime did so in the name of sharia law, as did the taleban when they were shooting women in the Kabul football stadium. Those are facts and are nothing to do with war being waged in Iraq and Afghanistan both of which i believe are illegal and immoral.
Somalia is basically a medieval society with automatic weapons.
Quote from: maddog on November 11, 2008, 09:10:00 AM
The people who committed this barbaric crime did so in the name of sharia law, as did the taleban when they were shooting women in the Kabul football stadium. Those are facts and are nothing to do with war being waged in Iraq and Afghanistan both of which i believe are illegal and immoral.
I agree but, it hasn't been established that the report from Somalia is a fact.
Saw this report on another board the other week and I'm still skeptical in that there was no independent verification in that report or this one. Given the nature of the conflict there, in that it's another front of the Yankie 'war on terrorism' as well having a lot of regional powers involved, I'd want to see independent verification of any reports coming from that region.
Lads the story is sick and horrific. It would make the blood boil alright - just look at some of the "tabloid" like response on here already. I suspect that was the intention of the story. I don't know much about Somalia except that it is an extremely violent country suffering severe tribal wars and some of the most horrific acts of butchery you could read about anywhere. But does a crime like this, committed by a muslim or whoever - implicate their whole religion as being non-peaceful. Christians have just as many skeletons in the closet as do the jews and probably anyone else. Can we not just condemn this terrible act for what it is without turning this into a religious debate?
This thread will either, with the help of the usual suspects, become about Americas "war on terror" or it will somehow go the direction of Green v Orange.
minder you are completely neglecting the religious vs non religious argument.
Not many people know that sharia courts, with their full underpinning of depraved, bigoted, discriminatory and savage principles, are now operating in Britain, with official legal status.
Quote from: Hardy on November 11, 2008, 11:53:35 AM
Not many people know that sharia courts, with their full underpinning of depraved, bigoted, discriminatory and savage principles, are now operating in Britain, with official legal status.
That's a bit of a broad sweep considering that there is no one or unifying form of Sharia jurisprudence and many of the same principles underpin our own civil and common law.
An interesting fact I came acros while travelling in south America recently was that as Sharia law forbids unethical investments in things such as weapons and alchohol, many of the wealthy middle eastern investment funds are putting their money into infrastructual projects in poor countries there for relatively little return (Sharia forbids the earning of interest in loans). As a result these countries have been able to get investment and loans for a fraction of what it was costing through the western financial system. Doesn't sound all that depraved to me.
Quote from: Donagh on November 11, 2008, 03:28:16 PM
Quote from: Hardy on November 11, 2008, 11:53:35 AM
Not many people know that sharia courts, with their full underpinning of depraved, bigoted, discriminatory and savage principles, are now operating in Britain, with official legal status.
That's a bit of a broad sweep considering that there is no one or unifying form of Sharia jurisprudence and many of the same principles underpin our own civil and common law.
An interesting fact I came acros while travelling in south America recently was that as Sharia law forbids unethical investments in things such as weapons and alchohol, many of the wealthy middle eastern investment funds are putting their money into infrastructual projects in poor countries there for relatively little return (Sharia forbids the earning of interest in loans). As a result these countries have been able to get investment and loans for a fraction of what it was costing through the western financial system. Doesn't sound all that depraved to me.
And any spare bricks from such projects can be put to good use by stoning 13 year olds to death.
I couldn't finish the Tele's article.
You'd want to cop on with the Tabloid replies to posts Safron Sam. You are painting all Sharia law as depraved based on one story. It is akin to a muslim stating that all western law is obscene because the USA executes prisioners coming up to election time in the US for political gain. Can you not see that different countries and regimes have differing extremes of fundamentalism. Look in our own western society. We have christians in Ireland who are quite reasonable people and we have christians in the bible belt of the US who think the word of the bible is totally literal and are therefore waiting for armageddon. I can guaruntee you there will be millions of decent muslims that would be equally horrified by this story as you are.
So systematic discrimination against women, which is enshrined in sharia law, to give just one instance, is OK with you lads? You're not indicating, Donagh, that your socialist principles are flexible enough to accommodate that?
And forgive me for not being an islamic "scholar" and thus not knowing where hand-lopping begins and ends and not being up to speed on the minutiae of which crimes attract execution by stoning. You'll surely understand, though, if I feel a little uneasy that "laws" based on these principles and that show so little respect for freedom of speech that blasphemy is a crime are now officially accepted by some of our EU partners. The same EU to which our own laws are now subservient.
Quote from: Hardy on November 11, 2008, 04:47:27 PM
So systematic discrimination against women, which is enshrined in sharia law, to give just one instance, is OK with you lads? You're not indicating, Donagh, that your socialist principles are flexible enough to accommodate that?
And forgive me for not being an islamic "scholar" and thus not knowing where hand-lopping begins and ends and not being up to speed on the minutiae of which crimes attract execution by stoning. You'll surely understand, though, if I feel a little uneasy that "laws" based on these principles and that show so little respect for freedom of speech that blasphemy is a crime are now officially accepted by some of our EU partners. The same EU to which our own laws are now subservient.
Of course I'm not, merely pointing out that there is no unified Islamic or Sharia law as such and condemning it all on the basis of a bunch of head cases in Somalia is akin to condemning our laws on the basis of a bunch of religious neo-cons in Texas putting people to death there.
Read this story on the Beeb last week, but didn't want to post here because I had a feeling it would run this course unfortunately. Not everything is about American imperialism, as it's not always about religion, nor about propaganda. While I would agree that some verification would not do any harm, do we always seek verification in all cases, especially those that reinforce our world view? In any event was an NGO source not quoted in the Beeb article? Or does their source of funding need to be verified too? I'll be honest, my immediate thought upon reading the story, irrespective of religion, was that I would have nutted all one thousand of the bastards who stood by and watched and did nothing, it infuriated me so much. On reflection that was wrong, but I see no hope for people who consider this entertainment, or worse still take some visceral thrill from it - and then you think of our own history of people going to watch public executions in market squares all over the country, even into the early years of the last century.
Quote from: Donagh on November 11, 2008, 05:03:58 PM
Quote from: Hardy on November 11, 2008, 04:47:27 PM
So systematic discrimination against women, which is enshrined in sharia law, to give just one instance, is OK with you lads? You're not indicating, Donagh, that your socialist principles are flexible enough to accommodate that?
And forgive me for not being an islamic "scholar" and thus not knowing where hand-lopping begins and ends and not being up to speed on the minutiae of which crimes attract execution by stoning. You'll surely understand, though, if I feel a little uneasy that "laws" based on these principles and that show so little respect for freedom of speech that blasphemy is a crime are now officially accepted by some of our EU partners. The same EU to which our own laws are now subservient.
Of course I'm not, merely pointing out that there is no unified Islamic or Sharia law as such and condemning it all on the basis of a bunch of head cases in Somalia is akin to condemning our laws on the basis of a bunch of religious neo-cons in Texas putting people to death there.
I haven't referred to Somalia at all. I'm letting people know, who may not, that verdicts of sharia "courts" are now being accepted under and supported by British law. I'm not sure about Holland, but I know it's under discussion, at least. These laws, as now practised in Britain, systematically discriminate against various groups, including women and people who deny muslim superstitions. They also deny basic, hard won rights that have been the fundamentals of European law for centuries, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Sharia law encompasses ritual stoning and judicial maiming. I can't imagine that stoning or dismemberment would be accepted by British law, but is it not at least worthy of comment that European jurisprudence is accommodating such a barbaric body of practices in a misguided attempt at inclusiveness?
Find it funny how many times the US gets a mention here ::)
These scum bags are nothing short of throw backs to the 7th century that have no place in
this day and age, the threat that exists here is very very real no matter how much some of you play it
down with the sweeping generalization excuse, the last numbers i read stated that 1/3 of Muslims in Britain
support the introduction of Sharia law there, so that kinda takes away the generalization argument of "the few rotten apples"
The political correctness here is sickening to be honest....It's OK to call a spade a spade sometimes,
another thing, would some of ye be as quick to doubt some Al jazeera report of the innocent civilians
killed by the US any given day ???
Interesting link below..... and yes it's a little closer to home than Somalia
http://www.sullivan-county.com/wcva/londonstan.htm
Can any of you explain in terms of Fairness to all how we'd be received protesting like the above in the middle of Mogadishu :o
Quote from: Tyrones own on November 11, 2008, 05:38:55 PM
The political correctness here is sickening to be honest....It's OK to call a spade a spade sometimes,
another thing, would some of ye be as quick to doubt some Al jazeera report of the innocent civilians
killed by the US any given day ???
Actually Al Jazeera are reporting this story as well. I just find it all a bit funny that when we have a stadium that was supposedly packed with people, we have no photos, no film footage and no first hand accounts. Now I reckon that before we nuke the place or declare war on every person in Europe that would like to abide by a
version of Sharia law we should at least have some concrete evidence that this happened and if it did that it is somehow reflective of Sharia law in general.
Your wasting your time Donagh. Some of these boys understanding of Muslim life and Sharia law is akin to Hollywoods understanding of the troubles - Simplistic and uninformed.
Any comment, then lads on whether you find laws that discriminate viciously against various minorities, including women and non-believers, acceptable? We'll leave aside the beheading, limb removal and ritual stoning for now, on the basis that that's not likely to be introduced in Europe (yet, anyway). But would anyone care to address my question?
Bump. ;)
Quote from: Tyrones own on November 11, 2008, 05:38:55 PM
Find it funny how many times the US gets a mention here ::)
These scum bags are nothing short of throw backs to the 7th century that have no place in
this day and age,
The US is being rightly used in comparison as it best represents the other end of the scale.
Our experience of this day and age is very different to that of war, famine and drought riddled Somalia. The term this
day and age is meaningless.
I think there are posters here who want this story to be true.
Quote from: Zapatista on November 13, 2008, 08:07:01 AM
Quote from: Tyrones own on November 11, 2008, 05:38:55 PM
Find it funny how many times the US gets a mention here ::)
These scum bags are nothing short of throw backs to the 7th century that have no place in
this day and age, in any civilized society ;)
The US is being rightly used in comparison as it best represents the other end of the scale.
Our experience of this day and age is very different to that of war, famine and drought riddled Somalia. The term this day and age is meaningless.
I think there are posters here who want this story to be true.
Fixed that for ye, like ye didn't know what i meant :-\
I never called for the nuking of anywhere, nor do I myself wish this story to be true but whether
we wish it or don't wish it, it is still happening was my point, also noticed no comment on the link
Anyway, the reason i bumped this was because Hardy had asked a fairly
simplistic :P though decent question to which I was looking forward to hearing
an answer from the more learned posters here on the subject but to date the jury's still out on a response of any kind...perhaps not as
informed as he'd have us believe :D
Quote from: Hardy on November 11, 2008, 09:16:57 PM
Any comment, then lads on whether you find laws that discriminate viciously against various minorities, including women and non-believers, acceptable? We'll leave aside the beheading, limb removal and ritual stoning for now, on the basis that that's not likely to be introduced in Europe (yet, anyway). But would anyone care to address my question?
Completely unacceptable.
Quote from: Hardy on November 11, 2008, 09:16:57 PM
Any comment, then lads on whether you find laws that discriminate viciously against various minorities, including women and non-believers, acceptable? We'll leave aside the beheading, limb removal and ritual stoning for now, on the basis that that's not likely to be introduced in Europe (yet, anyway). But would anyone care to address my question?
I find it acceptable in Somalia but not in Ireland. Right now it's acceptable in Somalia as I'm under no threat. Do you find it acceptable? Do you have other things to worry about? In fact this story didn't cross my mind after I logged out. I have more sense of outrage at having to pay my TV licence .
Supplementary question: Will those who find find laws that discriminate against women, non-believers and blasphemers unacceptable but support their introduction into European law please make their case.
Tyrone's Own - I'm a bit puzzled by your last paragraph- could you clarify?
Quotediscriminate against women
Christianity is great at not discriminating against women.
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
Nifan, if I may say so, you're missing the point. I'm arguing against introducing sharia law into the EU. That NYT article missed the point also. Going on about how recently it was that we had similar laws makes my point for me. We've worked for centuries to eliminate this stuff from our European laws. Our laws no longer permit this kind of discrimination. We no longer have the death penalty. What, then, is the case, having achieved all this, for taking a backward leap and importing a body of law that supports discrimination (at the least)?
Quote from: Hardy on November 14, 2008, 09:32:21 AM
Nifan, if I may say so, you're missing the point. I'm arguing against introducing sharia law into the EU. That NYT article missed the point also. Going on about how recently it was that we had similar laws makes my point for me. We've worked for centuries to eliminate this stuff from our European laws. Our laws no longer permit this kind of discrimination. We no longer have the death penalty. What, then, is the case, having achieved all this, for taking a backward leap and importing a body of law that supports discrimination (at the least)?
Maybe the EU should have Paddyaria law, every Monday off from May to September.
I agree with you Hardy -I do not think Sharia law should be imported.
My point (in response to you, but not directed at you) is simply for those who think that muslims are somehow backward when the bible (including the new testemant) is pretty misogynistic at times.
Quote from: nifan on November 14, 2008, 10:35:55 AM
I agree with you Hardy -I do not think Sharia law should be imported.
My point (in response to you, but not directed at you) is simply for those who think that muslims are somehow backward when the bible (including the new testemant) is pretty misogynistic at times.
All depends how you interpret it nifan and most of todays Christians don't manipulate one line of scripture and use that to suppress women, at least not that I know of.
Looking at the bigger picture and comparing the New Testament to Sharia Law is ridiculous
Quote from: Hardy on November 14, 2008, 09:16:25 AM
Supplementary question: Will those who find find laws that discriminate against women, non-believers and blasphemers unacceptable but support their introduction into European law please make their case.
Are you creating an argument with yourself?
Do you support laws being introduced in Europe that will destroy the environment and make 1 species of insect extinct?
all those books are crap, i'd say the new Harry Potter book would be a better read
Quote from: Zapatista on November 14, 2008, 03:51:19 PM
Quote from: Hardy on November 14, 2008, 09:16:25 AM
Supplementary question: Will those who find find laws that discriminate against women, non-believers and blasphemers unacceptable but support their introduction into European law please make their case.
Are you creating an argument with yourself?
Do you support laws being introduced in Europe that will destroy the environment and make 1 species of insect extinct?
Are you from Kerry?
No :D
I just don't know what you are trying to do. You ask a question you know the answer to and the reulting answer will still tell you nothing.
It's called debate. I'm trying to understand the position of those who seem to be supporting the introduction of islamic law in Europe, while at the same time proclaiming themselves anti discrimination, pro free speech, pro freedom of religion, etc. - all concepts actively denied by islamic law. I simply don't understand how they can hold both views and I'm asking them to explain the bit I'm missing about the benefits of this initiative.
Quote from: The Iceman on November 14, 2008, 03:25:58 PM
All depends how you interpret it nifan and most of todays Christians don't manipulate one line of scripture and use that to suppress women, at least not that I know of.
Looking at the bigger picture and comparing the New Testament to Sharia Law is ridiculous
I know they dont Iceman, but the majority of muslims dont go round stoning people either.
"manipulating" scripture however is an interesting comment.
Who doesnt manipulate it?
How is the bible supposed to be read? Is it word for word and literally? Is it to be interpreted? The interpretation of the bible has changed over the years, so id suggest that it has been manipulated by both christians and non christians alike.
I don't think you are. What you are trying to do is take contributers to the debate who are aware of a grey area and drag them into the black or white areas to justify your denial of that grey area. This is not debate it is limiting the arguement to a place you can hold your own.
You're entitled to think that. I think you're wrong. For one thing, I haven't suggested any limit to the argument. I just asked a question, to which I haven't got an answer. Even one teeny weeny little plus point for sharia law in Europe would be a start. For another thing, I'm actually a great fan of the grey area. Isn't that where all the debate takes place?
Quote from: maddog on November 14, 2008, 10:04:18 AM
Quote from: Hardy on November 14, 2008, 09:32:21 AM
Nifan, if I may say so, you're missing the point. I'm arguing against introducing sharia law into the EU. That NYT article missed the point also. Going on about how recently it was that we had similar laws makes my point for me. We've worked for centuries to eliminate this stuff from our European laws. Our laws no longer permit this kind of discrimination. We no longer have the death penalty. What, then, is the case, having achieved all this, for taking a backward leap and importing a body of law that supports discrimination (at the least)?
Maybe the EU should have Paddyaria law, every Monday off from May to September.
Feckers already have that, those secularists in France get more religious holidays than we do - one bank holiday every week through June & July (or something ridiculous like that...who cares about facts, a catchy one liner is much better)
Quote from: Hardy on November 14, 2008, 09:16:25 AM
Supplementary question: Will those who find find laws that discriminate against women, non-believers and blasphemers unacceptable but support their introduction into European law please make their case.
Tyrone's Own - I'm a bit puzzled by your last paragraph- could you clarify?
It was in response to the condescending post from Myles that I've quoted below
QuoteYour wasting your time Donagh. Some of these boys understanding of Muslim life and Sharia law is akin to Hollywoods understanding of the troubles - Simplistic and uninformed.
Seriously, After ye do get around to answering Hardy's question, could I also get an answer from the
(who could be described as sympathizers) their honest thoughts on the link I posted.