Syrian family in Germany orders a hit on their own daughter

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-18-2015, 03:54 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I just popped by to see if we were white people were hiring hitmen to kill their kids yet.

Not the ones that had daughters recently raped or that were refusing to marry someone that they don't know and don't love from over seas in order to supply that person with a green card. All other circumstances could be possible.

[*Nately120*]

(12-18-2015, 05:00 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Not the ones that had daughters recently raped or that were refusing to marry someone that they don't know and don't love from over seas in order to supply that person with a green card. All other circumstances could be possible.

It's high time we declare war on the ultra-conservative patriarchy.

[fredtoast]

(12-18-2015, 03:54 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I just popped by to see if we were white people were hiring hitmen to kill their kids yet.

No we just get a few of our chuirch buddies to help us do it iurselves.

(12-15-2015, 04:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not spanking.  Beating to death.

http://nypost.com/2015/10/16/son-beaten-to-death-because-he-wanted-to-leave-the-church/

Family members and other Christian Church members beat their son to death because he wanted to leave the Church.

Maybe they were inspired by the Bible story where the Christian god told Abraham to kill his own son Isaac as a sacrifice. 



NO MORE CHRISTIAN IMMIGRANTS ALLOWED IN UNITED STATES UNTIL THIS STOPS.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-20-2015, 01:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No we just get a few of our chuirch buddies to help us do it iurselves.

Not an honor killing. Nice try though.

try again.

[StLucieBengal]

(12-20-2015, 01:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No we just get a few of our chuirch buddies to help us do it iurselves.

Actually the Obama administration put a block on Coptic Christians trying to come here as refugees as the Muslim Brotherhood targeted them for death, rape, and slavery.

So this administration has a history.

[fredtoast]

(12-20-2015, 01:18 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Not an honor killing. Nice try though.

try again.

Sorry, didn't realize that made it all okay.

[fredtoast]

(12-20-2015, 06:10 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Actually the Obama administration put a block on Coptic Christians trying to come here as refugees as the Muslim Brotherhood targeted them for death, rape, and slavery.  

So this administration has a history.

Link?

[GMDino]

(12-21-2015, 12:44 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Link?

I found a Breitbart column about Coptic leaders being "denied access to the White House".  

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2011/10/25/report-obamas-muslim-advisers-block-middle-eastern-christians-access-to-the-white-house/

And then an opinion piece from 2014 with zero links making the same claim as Lucy.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/6/bruce-obamas-bizarre-immigration-rules/?page=all

That is written by Tammy Bruce...who *may* be a bit biased and perhaps a liar.

Still looking though.  I can't imagine Lucy would just make something up with no proof. I'm sure he just can't post the link from his phone.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-21-2015, 12:43 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry, didn't realize that made it all okay.

It doesn't, but the link you provided also includes the possibility that those boys were molesting the other kids in that church and were getting a beating for it that went a little too far. Big difference between someone being killed because they were raped or for something as trivial as a girl talking to another boy that her father disapproves of and being killed for it.

Sorry that you couldn't comprehend the difference, but hopefully this clears it up so that your future posts in regards to the subject matter are more in line.

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2015, 12:43 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry, didn't realize that made it all okay.

Is this what you guys call a strawman?

[fredtoast]

(12-21-2015, 12:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is this what you guys call a strawman?

Not really.

The discussion got sideways because Mike M responded to a comment I had made to Nately that ssaid nothing about honor killins.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-22-2015, 02:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not really.

The discussion got sideways because Mike M responded to a comment I had made to Nately that ssaid nothing about honor killins.

And the OP was about a mother trying to get a hitman (which Nately commented about white people hiring hitman to do the same) to kill her daughter because killing her daughter would re-establish her family's honor. Then you responded to nately with your link that did not have any white people hiring a hitman to kill their child nor was it even about honor killing. It was just a killing of a child that you are trying to equate to the OP.

So yes, it was a pathetic attempt to indirectly build a strawman.

[*bfine32*]

(12-22-2015, 02:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not really.

The discussion got sideways because Mike M responded to a comment I had made to Nately that ssaid nothing about honor killins.

OK, I get confused on these strawman posts. I just thought suggesting thought the killings were OK was doing that. But it apears that the only person that answered said it was not.

It appears I still haven't gotten this whole strawman thing figured out yet.

I hope everyone will let me know when I do it again, so I can better understand.  

[BmorePat87]

(12-22-2015, 03:47 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And the OP was about a mother trying to get a hitman (which Nately commented about white people hiring hitman to do the same) to kill her daughter because killing her daughter 

Despite the use of the word "hit", it was about a family who killed their daughter. The son and father did it, not a hit man. Someone who once hired the victim had an unsubstantiated claim that the mom once tried to hire a hitman.

It was then established that family on family murders occur far, far, far more frequently in the US than honor killings do and that a greater percentage of all Americans engage in family murders than Muslim Americans engage in honor killings.

With that presented, a point of this thread was requested beyond it being an excuse for the OP to tell us again that he hates Muslims.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-22-2015, 08:38 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Despite the use of the word "hit", it was about a family who killed their daughter. The son and father did it, not a hit man. Someone who once hired the victim had an unsubstantiated claim that the mom once tried to hire a hitman.

It was then established that family on family murders occur far, far, far more frequently in the US than honor killings do and that a greater percentage of all Americans engage in family murders than Muslim Americans engage in honor killings.

With that presented, a point of this thread was requested beyond it being an excuse for the OP to tell us again that he hates Muslims.

I agree that domestic violence is a problem.

One was a victim of a previous crime that was killed, the other is a possible perpetrator that was killed.
And the biggest difference: Intent. The girls family had every intention of killing her, where as the boy's family did not mean to.

We can agree to disagree, but I think there is really no comparison to be made between these two cases.

Ignore Lucie and address what is in front of you.

[BmorePat87]

(12-22-2015, 08:58 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I agree that domestic violence is a problem.

One was a victim of a previous crime that was killed, the other is a possible perpetrator that was killed.
And the biggest difference: Intent. The girls family had every intention of killing her, where as the boy's family did not mean to.

We can agree to disagree, but I think there is really no comparison to be made between these two cases.

Ignore Lucie and address what is in front of you.

Don't focus on the OP, focus on the angle you now want to discuss?

[StLucieBengal]

(12-21-2015, 12:44 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Link?

(12-21-2015, 08:13 AM)GMDino Wrote: I found a Breitbart column about Coptic leaders being "denied access to the White House".  

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2011/10/25/report-obamas-muslim-advisers-block-middle-eastern-christians-access-to-the-white-house/

And then an opinion piece from 2014 with zero links making the same claim as Lucy.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/6/bruce-obamas-bizarre-immigration-rules/?page=all

That is written by Tammy Bruce...who *may* be a bit biased and perhaps a liar.

Still looking though.  I can't imagine Lucy would just make something up with no proof. I'm sure he just can't post the link from his phone.

this is exactly why I have zero compassion for any of these Syrian refugees.   Amoung countless other reasons to not let them in ...   And if you wonder why..... watch the video.  ..... If you wonder why I support keeping Assad in power.... Watch the video.     We need to learn the lessons of toppling these secular dictators.    

Quote:Going out of your way to open the door to this country for people who have had terrorist associations is bad enough, but it doesn’t stop there. Investor’s Business Daily reports the Obama administration has rejected almost all the asylum requests from 20,000 Coptic Christians trying to flee Islamist persecution in Egypt.

Tammy Bruce is a longtime gay and women's activist.   Not sure how that would make her biased on this topic.   Besides the info is from investors business daily report.

Unless you are now saying that gay and women's activists are liars and can't be trusted?  

[GMDino]

(12-22-2015, 10:27 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: this is exactly why I have zero compassion for any of these Syrian refugees.   Amoung countless other reasons to not let them in ...   And if you wonder why..... watch the video.  ..... If you wonder why I support keeping Assad in power.... Watch the video.     We need to learn the lessons of toppling these secular dictators.    


Tammy Bruce is a longtime gay and women's activist.   Not sure how that would make her biased on this topic.   Besides the info is from investors business daily report.

Unless you are now saying that gay and women's activists are liars and can't be trusted?  

Lucy you have to read more than the headlines.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/01/sarah_palins_biggest_fan.html

Quote:After NOW censured her, she quit her post and went back to college, earning a degree in political science from USC. *  When Bruce re-entered public life, she called herself a "classical liberal," but she had in fact completed her transition from the left to the far right.

She wrote acouple of books outlining her new views, citing the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal as a key cause of her disillusionment with the liberal establishment.

As libertarian feministCathy Young  (who is not a fan) chronicled in Reason in 2003, Bruce insisted that her beliefs had not shifted—and indeed she did continue calling herself a Democrat well into the aughts. "The funny thing is that my politics haven't changed at all," she told Young, adding that the left's rhetoric about empowering women and other groups was a "charade."


Today, Bruce says things like, "My feminism is about making choices that empower you," and "Group power leads to groupthink." It's a version of what I heard over and over again at a women's Tea Party conference I reported from this fall, where women called themselves feminists while denouncing the litmus tests they said liberals had attached to the word. If Bruce doesn't raise as many eyebrows within the Tea Party as one might expect, it's partly because Tea Partiers care mostly about the Constitution, liberty, and taxes; they aren't culture warriors. It's also useful, of course, for Palin and other Tea Partiers to be able to call a self-proclaimed feminist with Bruce's sexual orientation one of their own. (Bruce's speaker bio offers such topics as "Contrary to Popular Belief: How Conservative Ideas Empower Women, Gays, and Blacks.")

Also key to the Tea Party's embrace of Bruce: She doesn't rock the boat on gay rights. She's involved with a conservative gay rights group, but Bruce's official position on marriage is that it's for a man and a woman only—even though she told Cathy Young eight years ago that she supported gay marriage. It's a telling change; one constant throughout Bruce's career has been her willingness to shift shapes. Perhaps that's why she's been so aggressive about supporting Palin these past couple of years. Bruce's books didn't give her a ton of traction,and the right-wing pundit field is crowded. But Palin provides Bruce something specific to hawk—after all, you can't sell subscriptions, as she does, without sought-after content. 

Anyway...

[StLucieBengal]

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/022114-690860-obama-immigration-reforms-seem-to-come-with-religious-test.htm

Like I said. She was merely reporting from Another. But please let's stay off the real topic as get into petty squabbling over Tammy Bruce

It's almost like her move towards conservative views somehow removes her life long fight for gay and women's rights.

[GMDino]

(12-23-2015, 12:44 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/022114-690860-obama-immigration-reforms-seem-to-come-with-religious-test.htm

Like I said.  She was merely reporting from Another.   But please let's stay off the real topic as get into petty squabbling over Tammy Bruce

It's almost like her move towards conservative views somehow removes her life long fight for gay and women's rights.

Her move to conservative means she *may* be biased, as I said.  And her "life long fight for gay and women's rights" now includes her saying gays can't get married.

Do you understand that?

Anyway, as to your OP, we still haven't seen any link to show its true from you.

Carry on.