Thursday, April 24, 2008

Honor by Dishonor


I’m going off my usual format for this post. I've got a gripe and a very big gripe too. It describes an issue that has gotten my blood to the boiling point. Take a good hard long look at the picture. Lovely girls aren't they? There is one problem.

THE GIRLS YOU SEE IN THE PICTURE ARE DEAD. THAT RIGHT, THEY ARE "D" "E" "A" "D". THEY DIED IN TEXAS. IT HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS AN "HONOR KILLING".

THAT'S RIGHT, A SO CALLED HONOR KILLING IN TEXAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

SINCE WHEN HAS IT BEEN CONSIDERED AN HONORABLE DEED TO BREAK THE LAWS OF THIS NATION?

SINCE WHEN HAVE WE, AS A NATION, ALLOWED MURDER TO BE CALLED AN HONORABLE ACT?

WHERE IS THE OUTCRY FOR THIS HEINIOUS CRIME?

THIS IS UNITED STATES NOT SOME MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRY. IT IS CALLED A COUNTRY THAT PROMISES FREEDOM AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

IT IS NOT A COUNTRY THAT PROMISES HONOR REGAINED BY THE KILLING OF WOMEN AND LITTLE GIRLS.

WHY ARE PEOPLE SO QUIET ON THIS?

HAVE WE, AS A NATION, BECOME SO AFRAID OF HURTING SOMEONE’S FEELINGS THAT WE FORGET WHAT WE PROMISE THOSE THAT LOOK UP TO US AS A NATION?

HAVE WE BECOME SO INTIMIDATED BY A RELIGION THAT WE WILL NOT YELL OUT THAT WHAT THEY DO IN THE NAME OF ALLAH IS WRONG?

WE SURE WERE NOT AFRAID TO TELL THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THAT MOLESTATION OF CHILDREN WAS WRONG. WERE WE?

WHAT IS IT ABOUT ISLAM THAT WE WILL NOT TAKE THE SAME STANCE AGAINST ONE OF THEIR OWN?

AND IF THERE IS ANYONE THAT IS READING THIS AND DISAGREES, I REALLY DON’T GIVE A DAMN WHAT YOU THINK. YOUR POLITICALLY CORRECT ATTITUDE OR RELIGIOUS VIEWPOINT DOESN’T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THOSE GIRLS WERE MURDERED. IT DOESN’T CHANGE THE FACT IT WAS DONE OUT OF RELIGIOUS CONVICTION.

THE MURDER OF THOSE TWO GIRLS WAS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. IT IS TIME WE STOOD UP AND STARTED YELLING FOR WHAT IS RIGHT.

LOOK AT THE PICTURE BELOW.

THE MAN SITTING WITH THE TWO GIRLS, THEIR FATHER, SAID THAT THE GIRLS MUST DIE TO SAVE HIS HONOR.

TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT A MAN WHO SHOWS HIS LOVE FOR HIS DAUGHTERS BY KILLING THEM TO SAVE HIS HONOR.

LOOK DEEP, LOOK HARD. THEN GO TO DCAT'S AND LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS MAN



20 comments:

tweetey30 said...

That is sick to be honest with you. This man should be hanged or killed himself. His honour would be to be put where he will never harm another child or anyone again. I hope they can do something about this.

The Griper said...

me, i'd stake him out over a red ant hill, pour honey all over him.
then i'd allow the ants the honor of having a good meal.

ERS said...

Unfortunately, these weren't the first dishonor killings in America. And they probably won't be the last.

Ellen R. Sheeley, Author
"Reclaiming Honor in Jordan"

The Griper said...

that is true, i know, ers. all the more reason to make people aware of it.

BB-Idaho said...

"AND IF THERE IS A LIBERAL THAT IS READING THIS AND DISAGREES, I REALLY DON’T GIVE A DAMN WHAT YOU THINK. YOUR POLITICALLY CORRECT ATTITUDE DOESN’T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THOSE GIRLS WERE MURDERED. IT DOESN’T CHANGE THE FACT IT WAS DONE OUT OF RELIGIOUS CONVICTION."
..doubt you will find a liberal that condones the anti-woman aspect of sharia law. Apparently, from what little I know, the koran
does not require 'honor killing', although it seems some mullahs must interpet it in that way. Removing religion from the equation, the killing of one's own children is worse than illogical:
we feel the same about any parent
that murders their own child. I understand your point that if it is done in the name of religion it is even more heinous. It seems that the 'father' may have fled back to Egypt, rather than face
US laws. It goes without saying that the laws of the US take prescedent over religious law.
(hence the problems of catholic
priests, or for that matter the
child polygamy of the FLDS.) I am not sure what 'politically correct'
would be in the case, but it seems open and shut immoral, illegal and despicable. Track him down, extradite him, try him and execute him. Period.

The Griper said...

bb,
its obvious you don't disagree with me on this one and that was the condition. thus, that part would not apply to you and probably most people.

right there is an example of my stance in regards to individualism. seeing the word liberal in there would make a liberal be defensive of himself. seeing yourself as an individual, one must see the whole thing as applicable to himself. and if applicable has no ground to complain.
make sense?

The Griper said...

ohh, one more thing, bb. it wasn't a matter of church laws vs state laws in the case of the molestations in the catholic church. child molestation is not a church doctrine, thus the priests were not covered by the 1st amendment. in fact it goes against church doctrine. the same would hold true in cases of murder, stealing etc.
the church was held responsible because priests had, in a sense, employee status and the church appeared to do nothing to stop it.

confessional secrecy is a church doctrine, thus covered by the 1st amendment.

BB-Idaho said...

IMO, confessional secrecy sometimes
presents its own moral dilemma. For
example at:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/priest-breaks-seal-of-confession-over-bronx-murder-678214.html
..we learn of the Jesuit, who possessed murder information (protecting a killer) and did the proper heirachical dogmatic theological thing-kept silent
(while innocent people were wrongly convicted). Then, in an
epiphany of guilt, came forward
(simultaneously absolving himself and condemning himself). Stuff of novels...but in this case apparently true...

The Griper said...

priests are still human beings, bb. they have the same feelings as anyone else. and i have no doubt that guilt can consume them also because of the things they hear. and in fact i'd say that a great many feels that way for the reason that in to become a priest a man must be one that places others before himself, in other words, outer motivated.

but the fact you can find cases where a priest did not keep quiet only declares his humanity not doctrine. heck, you will see men leave the priesthood because they are only human and cannot keep their vow of celebacy. looking back in history we find Popes who have sired children. we can't expect perfection out of them but we can condemn those that commit acts that are totally unacceptable, such as the molestation of kids.

just one of those things that catholics will have to bear a burden for. and as i was saying to a muslim,,muslims will always have to bear the burden of what is happening now by those terrorists.

it will be a part of history neither will be able to hide or shrink from.

it is called guilt by association. it may be wrong but it still is a fact we have to live with. guilt by association is a very real phenomonom. and every class suffers from it. but we must also remember that we reap the benefits of that association also. just as we, as individuals, reap the benefit or suffer the consequences of our acts.

BB-Idaho said...

Sorry for veering off topic, but was interested in your "it is called guilt by association. it may be wrong but it still is a fact we have to live with." This, once again reminds of the difference between individual & group: guilt by association, IMO,
is a natural human tendency, inate
after years of experience: it is in many ways a defense mechanism:
a couple hundred years ago, if your cabin burned and there were Indians in the neighborhood/a motorcycle gang has a fight in a bar & down the street a nearby homeowner gets beat up/ etc. Pperhaps the most horrible example was during the Albigensian Crusade when the Archbishop of Beziers
shouted "Kill them all-God knows his own!" It is a human trait to
weigh the odds (statistics, with all its faults) about predicted behavior of some group based on that human's experiences. In such a case we subordinate the individual to our perception of
his class (for example your suspicion that a "liberal" might
condone a Muslim honor killing, reasoning that liberals place
political correctness above right and wrong-and some might, for all I know). But as a mechanism, it
permits us to pre-judge, often correctly, sometimes not, what an individual action might be, based on the group or class of that individual-hence racial profiling, legal prejudice
attending an ex-con in court, or even what we expect a young lady to answer in a beauty contest. Such is the persuasion of guilt by association, that some early civilizations had laws that executed the family of a criminal. Isn't it peculiar that our troops, when fighting insurgencies are faced with an almost identical dilemma..an insurgent terrorist
blends well with harmless locals?
As a human judgement tool, we must realize that guilt by association
exists side by side with it's opposite: perceived virtue by association- priests, soldiers,
paramedics, church choirs, etc.
IMO, it is a rough statistical
prediction with a dose of common sense. Again, apologies for wandering-am in agreement with your original posting.

The Griper said...

guilt by association, a lot of times, leaves out an important element of your definition, common sense. common sense would say that christianity or more specifically, the catholics of today, should not be judged and condemned by what happened a long time ago, namely the "inquisition", but it still is used to justify their thoughts about catholics or christianity as a whole.

we teach our children not to speak to strangers because of the actions of a few. thus every stranger is guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of that child. it is a question of the possibility too that we judge by association not only the probability.

to used a religious metaphor to it, everyone wears the mark of Cain. and it can work both ways too. an individual will be guilty of the wrongs of a group or the group will be seen guilty of the wrongs of a few where common sense says no that isn't true.

the best example of its opposite would be a sports analogy. when a team wins a championship a whole city, even a state will, in some way, reap the accolades of it.

as for my "liberal" remark, it wasn't meant in the sense of right or wrong of it. it was meant more in the terms of understanding of it. that is, judging him by western ideas of right and wrong as opposed to muslim ideas of honor. in other words accusing me of not understanding their culture and why he did it. there is where pc comes into play. or that i may be making a blanket statement about all muslims even tho i was not.
and i grant you, the probability of that might be low in this blog. i was just covering all the bases with that statement along with stating the depth of my feelings on this sort of thing.

and by stating it as i did it gave me a way out for those as yourself who did agree but felt i may be attacking all liberals. to be honest i probably could have used the word "anyone" instead of "liberal" there. but also, i think you'll agree that when the accusation of being pc comes up it is against the liberal.

BB-Idaho said...

Griper,
I will agree that PC is a conservative term for liberals, based IMO, on the idea of diversity or inclusiveness in social liberalism/government solutions in education, health and employment issues, dialog vs military action, etc...if you should consider the opposite. Eg,
a semantic term akin to PC which
applies to a group which embraces
economic darwinism, but scoffs at biological evolution, selectively rejects scientific consesus as in
global warming issues, stem-cell
research, palentological issues such as hominid development vs a few million years, etc and a faith
in a laissez faire free market as a solution to all problems. (In other words the other end of the spectrum, marching in lock-step to core ideas). Since personally, I find merit as well as stubborn rigidity in each extreme, I tend
to a pragmatic center and often
catch it from both sides. PC is a construct which clouds dialog and suppresses truth, no question, but in a way, rather that Poltical Correctness it can mean Polite
Conversation. :)

The Griper said...

bb,
ohhh i'm not saying that those on the other side cannot be identified by certain traits also.

i was just explaining my use of it here since you brought the term up. that is all. and i admitted i could have used a different term. in fact i am going to change that after thinking on it.

and no sense on confusing the issue, pc when the letters are used is the accepted commonly thought as "politically correct" in the same way the the use of the phrase the "n word" is how people get away with saying nigger without saying it though everyone thinks it once said. lol

but will say, that is why i don't identify myself with any group except on particular issues since taking a stand will automatically identify you with the group that takes the same stand.

by doing that, it allows me to change sides, when convinced otherwise, without being a traitor. for you can't be a traitor to yourself.

as for free enterprise being the only solution. i prefer to use the term "best solution" of the two available, free enterprise vs socialism with a mixed economy seen as a transitional period between the two.

i say this because no one has been able to convince me that either form of economy can solve every problem except in theory.

now, given this, if we only had two choices, a pure state of free enterprise or a pure state of socialism then yes, i'd choose free enterprise over socialism.

the reason; when a bad decision is made far fewer people will have to suffer the consequences of that bad decision. that is one of the benefits of a competative market.

it is also, in my words, the natural form of economy. it is the economy of "choice". socialism must be imposed upon a society. it cannot occur naturally in reality. in theory it might but reality does not follow theory all that often.

as for faith, that is a factor in everything. there needs to be faith in socialism also. faith is an important factor in any decision of future action we take or make.

and remember, rigidity is often a misleading term, for it often describes the zeal of faith one has in something. it can also show the lack of faith one has in another's ideas. and thirdly, it may just reveal that a good enough argument has not been made yet to convince someone to think otherwise. and lastly, an acussation of it may reveal arrogance and self-rightiousness on the part of the accuser.

compromise is not always the answer. it may even be the cause of future greater problems. in fact i'd say there are some issues where compromise cannot be made.

as for dialog vs war i doubt that you'd find many people advocating that war is the first resort to problems. and you'd find extremes both ways. the problem here is not what the choices are but at what point is the point of last resort.

there will always be those who will say that dialog wasn't given its full chance. a pacifist is one who would never say that the point of last resort was met.

that, to me, is one of the beauties of our form of government. it can be debated in Congress as to whether that point has been reached. and with the use of democratic process there will be advocates for both sides.

in fact i hope that there s never a 100% agreement in Congress on any issue. reason; once i saw that i'd have to think "uh oh we now have dictatorial rule". and even if terms were limited it still would be dictatorial for that term.

as for the rest of the claims, i take a sceptic's view which is considered a scientific viewpoint on anything that is called theory. theory only reveals a probability based on facts known at the time with a given that all the facts were used. and theory should never be presented nor accepted as if it were a fact.

and i'll say this also. a theory is an unproven fact. that is a scientific fact. and i resent some using the whole of society as a means to prove or disprove a theory in order to come up with a fact.

and i also disaprove of using fear as a means of getting society's permission to use it as a guinea pig. it is unethical.

Gayle said...

Griper, I like your solution. We have Fire Ants here in Texas. Billions upon billions of them! They are aptly named and it wouldn't take them long to do the job even without the honey.

The Griper said...

well Texas is where we'll stake him out then. fits the crime completely since the deed was done there.

dcat said...

I love you Griper for doing this "snif"

The more that know the better!

But you know Atlas started it!

Yes I am pissed off too. How do you keep from using swear words?

dcat said...

They also have property and a home in NY.

I'll pour the pigs blood on him as he goes to meet with satan!

dcat said...

Oh yeah and he raped them as well don't forget that part!

The show is with the aunt of the two girls. She tells the story...

Fallen' Angel said...

It took me a long time to comment on this post. As much as I wished to make a logical reply, there is little here for me to write that isn't based on raw emotion, perhaps because there IS no logic in such an act.
You speak of dishonor? There is enough dishonor to go around for many in this case. I LIVE in this state, a place where we once hung people for stealing horses from the nearest tree. But we have somehow "progressed?" from there to allowing the admitted, openly proud, perpetrator of an aggravated, premeditated double homicide to walk away untouched by the justice system at the local, state and federal level. In doing so, we have not only dishonored ourselves, but far worse, we have dishonored the lives of these precious young girls even more, by allowing their own father, the ONE man every little girl should be able to trust, love and count on to protect her from the moment of her conception, to literally walk away.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with ers: this is not the first, nor will it likely be the last of these acts unless WE the people of this Country start remembering what "Honor" truly is.
I personally know the EMS workers and hospital staff that dealt with the aftermath of this event. They have seen the abuse of children, women and the elderly at every level imaginable, but they will never be the same people they were before they answered this call.
It disgusts me to no end that this was allowed to occur at all. The fact that it occurred where I live brings shame upon myself and every Texan I know who has not screamed bloody murder to have this “person,” (this is not a man and I will not give him that title,) to every media source, government official and member of law enforcement over this act and continues to do so until he is extradited and justice is done.
Do we not owe at least that to these young women?
I wish I could have presented a more intelligent, logical reply like those I have seen here, but, in this case I simply can not do it.
As for the fire ant theory, and the pig blood... I’m all for it. But first, I would like to steal a “method” from the book “Lonesome Dove,” as my own addition of dealing with those who commit such acts: Tie him down with the ants on stand by, cut a small incision in the lower abdomen and pull out about 6 feet of his intestines, then, tie it to a tree the same distance away. Do this in the evening, in an area well known for its coyote population.
(Like Texas for example.)
Now let the ants loose a few 100 at a time and add the pigs blood...that way he can watch what the Coyotes are having for supper.
Forgive me for the gore, but sometimes Angels aren’t just there to catch you when you fall...sometimes, they avenge.
Angel Out

The Griper said...

angel,
forgive me for chuckling at your comments but like you said angels can be avenging also. we must alsso remember that the man raped those girls too so the slower he dies would still be too fast for me.

Followers

Words of Wisdom of my visitors

Grab This Widget

Gas Buddy

Search for gas prices by US Zip Code

 

Design by Amanda @ Blogger Buster