Porn star hunted by extremist Muslims

Originally posted by astrocreep
If we'd all like to see this topic continue, lets keep the sexual tone down as well as stop the name calling. If this deteriorates into a chit-chat conversation about how hot a porn star looks, then it'll go to chit-chat. I suggest that last post be edited and the slur taken out against the poster of the former topic. That kind of hot headedness might work where you're from but it won't fly here. People can have their opinions and even state facts that you wish kept secret. A persoanl attack when you have no recourse is not the answer on ATS.

Ah, ok. How about I change it to

"The poster named Thinker is not disgraced for raping women either"? Would that be acceptable? Since that is the exact corrolary to what he has said. This....poster states that all muslim men rape european women and don't even care about the rapes, and he makes filthy pigish bigoted statements about an ethnicity that he obviously doesn't like, not just in this thread but in others, and I am the one warned for calling him a pig?

What proper recourse is there to some bigot who states that muslims are all rapists? And irregardless of what that recourse may be, how does that somehow make someone else wrong for noting that they are pigish and bigoted?

Originally posted by Nygdan
What proper recourse is there to some bigot who states that muslims are all rapists?

Here is the place for you (BOHICA�s thread) :
Islamic leaders reject marital rape law

Originally posted by Hellmutt
"A husband has the right to be intimate with his wife and the wife must obey. If the wife refuses, the rule of nusyus (recalcitrance) can be applied and the husband will no longer be responsible to provide for his wife."

If the wife refuses to have sex with her husband the husband doesn't have ot provide for her. This says nothing about being allowed to rape her. If anything, it says you may rather simply stop providing for her.

Originally posted by Hellmutt
"A husband has the right to be intimate with his wife and the wife must obey. If the wife refuses, the rule of nusyus (recalcitrance) can be applied and the husband will no longer be responsible to provide for his wife."

Originally posted by Nygdan
If the wife refuses to have sex with her husband the husband doesn't have ot provide for her. This says nothing about being allowed to rape her. If anything, it says you may rather simply stop providing for her.

No what it is saying is that a women is basically a man's property/slave that must obey what he says. Whether this promotes/doesn't promote rape or not isn't the goddamn point. The point is that this law could have cut down on the number of marital-rapes but yet islamic leaders rejected it because it goes against the religion. They shouldn't have needed to even propose such a law to be begin with.

While the oppression of women as occurred in just about every civilization throughout mankinds history, doesn't make it right. As is evident today, women outpace men in many many areas. Besides physical strength they are any mans equal. The fact that any culture still tries to surpress the rights of women sickens me to no end.

[edit on 24-8-2004 by dusran]

Lets see, starve to death, die of exposure, or have sex when you don't want to? That sounds like rape to me. Being forced to have sex is rape, and if the consequence of not having sex is being out of a house, food, and liquids, that is rape.

Originally posted by dusran
Whether this promotes/doesn't promote rape or not isn't the goddamn point.

Whether or not it supports rape is what is specifically being discussed.

lesser:
Lets see, starve to death, die of exposure,

No, its not the same. They are saying the sex is a duty of their wives, and a privilege of being a wife is being taken care of. Don't do the duty, don't get the privilege.

Its -wrong-, its not liberal nor progressive, but its not saying that rape is acceptable.



[edit on 24-8-2004 by Nygdan]

Originally posted by Nygdan

Ah, ok. How about I change it to

"The poster named Thinker is not disgraced for raping women either"? Would that be acceptable? Since that is the exact corrolary to what he has said. This....poster states that all muslim men rape european women and don't even care about the rapes, and he makes filthy pigish bigoted statements about an ethnicity that he obviously doesn't like, not just in this thread but in others, and I am the one warned for calling him a pig?

What proper recourse is there to some bigot who states that muslims are all rapists? And irregardless of what that recourse may be, how does that somehow make someone else wrong for noting that they are pigish and bigoted?

Okay, how about you change your attitude or simply sign off this forum.

You made a brutal statement toward someone who stated an opinion, largely based in reality, I would add. Then you somehow begin to attempt to justify the behavior that member criticized to begin with. He didn't say all muslim men were rapist, he said they weren't disgraced by the act..to which, from your recent follow-ups, seems quite accurate. Oh, and I did warn him for the one-line repsonses as well, but thats none of your business. The warn stands and is completely justified. Don't like it? Send a complaint to admin. I moderate the complaint forum as well and I assure you, I will recommend that every other mod/admin view your comments on this topic.

Originally posted by astrocreep
Okay, how about you change your attitude or simply sign off this forum.

I do not think that I am presenting a 'bad attitude', and I am not aware of any policy of the board the recommends people who may have a 'bad attitude' leave the board. I may be incorrect, am I?

You made a brutal statement toward someone who stated an opinion largely based in reality, I would add.

You are saying that you think its a reality that there are hordes of evil muslim men prowling the countryside looking to rape fair european women then eh?

Oh, and I did warn him for the one-line repsonses as well, but thats none of your business. The warn stands and is completely justified. Don't like it? Send a complaint to admin.

I am not complaining about being warned, or to say the least I am not challenging the warning. The original poster made a bigoted racist comment defaming all muslims. Apparently you think in the same bigoted racist terms. Fine. But I am certainly not restricted from noteing this. The original poster accused all muslims of being rapists and not caring about rape.

I moderate the complaint forum as well and I assure you, I will recommend that every other mod/admin view your comments on this topic.

I am perfectly fine with this, but, again, I have filed no complaint anywhere with anyone. I am in fact interested to see exactly how they will be received tho, and if you wish to have other moderators review my comments, then you formally have my permission to do so (and I am only saying this as a formality, obviously a moderator doesn't need my 'permission').

I have not noticed that it is the normal policy of this board to allow people to make racist bigoted comments and then penalize people for pointing this out. Perhaps this is a policy that I have not noticed. I had thought that this board, as advertized, tried to have sensible discussions about unusual topics, not serve to allow pigs to insult and slander entire ethnicities. religions, and peoples. The statement that muslims don't care about european women being raped is particularly loaded, and the OP didn't present this as some sort of sociological comment or observation. I have seen this poster, ironically and inaccurately named by himself 'Thinker', spread this patently absurd, hideous, and repugnant type of garbage in other parts of the forum, and I see no reason not to call someone who is obviously highly predjudiced as being such.

I -do- understand the postion of the moderator insofar as my 'one liner' didn't contribute to the converstaion, but realistically how can one expect to even have a conversation built on slander, lies, and ethnic predjudice? The post I responded to was itself a one liner anyway, and while I could've developed the idea that 'Thinker' is a racist pig further, it seemed that a simple statement as such was more appropriate.

Would it be prefered that I had stated that Thinker acts like a racist and makes the statements of a bigot, instead of directly saying he is a 'racist bigot'? I am not trying to be sarcastic in saying this, I am genuinely wondering how the reponse is supposed to be worded.

And, again, I am not protesting receiving a warning, and do not request that it be removed. My post was, obviously, a personal insult, which acoording to the rules of the forum, which I have agreed to, such post warrant a warning. However a person can not be expected to react horribly to horribly repugnant people making disgusting comments like that, and I do have to wonder at why the policy allows making attacks on a race of people but forbids making similar attacks on a particular person; especially when the 'attack' on that person is a simple statement of truth, rather than the OP's ergregious lies.

I also do not understand why you think that I have somehow proven the OPs orignal assinine and ridiculous assertion. I have stated, specifically, that the supposed 'koranic law' does not support, in anyway, ever, anyone raping anyone else, and in fact is an insistance that normal (for its context) social methods of dealing with marital problems be applied.

Originally posted by Nygdan
I have stated, specifically, that the supposed 'koranic law' does not support, in anyway, ever, anyone raping anyone else, and in fact is an insistance that normal (for its context) social methods of dealing with marital problems be applied.

So...
Where does it says "Thou shall not rape" in the Koran?
Have you seen this thread? :
Islamic leaders reject marital rape law
...And clicked on the "Come here woman" link...?

Originally posted by Hellmutt
Where does it says "Thou shall not rape" in the Koran?

In the link underconsideration a muslim man is told that if he wife won't fuful her 'wifely duties' that he is excused from supporting her anymore and infact is justified in doing so. This indicates that -raping her- is, if anything, not promoted, and perhaps is a suggestion that doing so is wrong.

How does any of this mean that all muslims don't care about 'european women' being rapped, and obviously the context of that statement was tht the 'foreign muslim men are raping our pristine european women'?

Originally posted by Nygdan
In the link underconsideration a muslim man is told that if he wife won't fuful her 'wifely duties' that he is excused from supporting her anymore and infact is justified in doing so. This indicates that -raping her- is, if anything, not promoted, and perhaps is a suggestion that doing so is wrong.

'A husband has the right to be intimate with his wife and the wife must obey. If the wife refuses, the rule of nusyus (recalcitrance) can be applied and the husband will no longer be responsible to provide for his wife.'

Islamic leaders and scholars have rejected a proposal by the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) pressing for husbands to be charged with rape if they force their wives to have sex with them.

Ok, as stated in the second quote above if a wife refuses to have sex with her husband the husband no longer has to provide for her. In the third quote Islamic leaders rejected a proposal that would charge husbands with rape if they force their wives to have sex.

According to that law in the second quote islamic men cannot force their wives to have sex with them but they can take away certain things from their wife if they refuse. It's obvious, going by that article in the other thread, that some islamic men are, in fact, forcing their wives to have sex with them even though their wives refuse. This is in fact rape and yes it is happening, its not widespread but it does happen.

The law, mentioned in the article, would have allowed islamic men who forced themselves on their unwilling wives to be charged with rape. But the islamic leaders rejected this law. Why? Sounds to me like they approve of rape. There is no other way of seeing it. Their current law states that if a women refuses to have sex the husband no longer has to provide for his wife not that he can force himself on her.

Yes it is in their culture a duty of the wife to provide sex whenever. But going by the current law if she refuses, the husband has no right to force her, he can just take away rights. By forcing his wife to have sex the husband is breaking the current law but yet islamic leaders rejected a law that could have put a stop to this. How can this not be considered an acceptance of marital-rape?

Originally posted by dusran
This is in fact rape and yes it is happening, its not widespread but it does happen.

I would not suggest for a moment that there is no such thing as a muslim man who is also a rapist.

Sounds like the people who rejected the law are a bunch of pricks. Now, what part of that reads 'all muslims everywhere on the planet approve of rape'? What part of that is a suggestion that the muslims, as a religon, ethnic group, whatever, are inherently rapists?

Their current law states that if a women refuses to have sex the husband no longer has to provide for his wife not that he can force himself on her.

If a man's wife in the united states won't have sex with him, the courts provide recourse for him. Is that somehow raping her?

How can this not be considered an acceptance of marital-rape?

Again, these guys are a subsection of the muslim world. These are men in a primitve background with an extremely traditional worldview. These guys are scum. I do not deny that. But not all muslims are pro-rape chauvenists, and not all pro-rape cultures are islamic or even arabic.

Originally posted by Nygdan
But not all muslims are pro-rape chauvenists, and not all pro-rape cultures are islamic or even arabic.

Pro-rape cultures?
Can you give us an example of a pro-rape culture which is not islamic or arabic?

[edit on 10/2/2004 by esther]

[edit on 10/2/2004 by esther]

I guess "honor killings" is something that happens all over the world.
Here a recent story from New Zealand, reported by The New Zealand Herald on the 24.08.2004 :

Jury will see video of woman burned alive

"Ahmad Riyaz Khan, aged 23 of Mangere, is accused of murder by setting fire to his former girlfriend Gulshad Banu Hussein at the Shell service station in Atkinson Ave, Otahuhu, in August last year after she said she did not want anything more to do with him.

...the killing was captured by service station security cameras as the drama unfolded over two minutes.
...***...
...Ms Hussein died on the forecourt where she fell.

Witnesses would say that Khan did nothing to help but instead complained that he, too, had been burned."

This is just SICK!
There are stories like this that makes me want to join the death penalty supporters...
BTW, My thoughts around that particular subject here:
Death Penalty (effective Punishment or Cruel and Unusual)?

Originally posted by Nygdan
you filthy little pig.

I thought that a bit rude to pigs, but in the news today it says that the mullahs in Iran have forbidden shopkeepers to own monkeys and pigs because they are considered filthy so the religion may explain it.

Originally posted by Hellmutt
I guess "honor killings" is something that happens all over the world.

Honor kililngs, ritual killings, yes, it happens in many extremely traditional societies, don't pretend that only muslims do this.

How is it rape?

Let me explain this to you people who dont think so.

In Muslim countries women are not allowed to work. Many do not go to school because they are not allowed to.

This "privilage" of being cared for by thier husbands, is not a privilage, its a necessity.

If the husband refuses to support her for not having sex, she is doomed. Since she cannot work or earn money on her own, let alone be seen in public without male escorts, she no longer has anyone to care for her.

Muslim women simply cann0ot care for themselves because they arent allowed to, and dont know how. If the husband stops providing for her, shes as good as dead, since she cant simply go out, get a joib, and care for herself like western women are allowed to.

Thus, he threatens her with starvation and homelessness if she does not comply. Threats to cause bodily harm used to coerce someone are rape.

"Well I'm disgraced by your stupidity and bigotry, you filthy little pig."

Lets look at the facts


The numbers quoted by Pipes and Hedegaard are truly correct; they were quoted in all major newspapers in February this year. They are police-statistics of REPORTED rapes in 2001. More detailed:

Denmark as a whole: 68 % non-danish rapists are Muslim

Greater Copenhagen: 76% " " " are Muslim


A grotesque overrepresentation: 7.4 % are foreigners. Half of these must be women or underaged. In other words: aprox: 3 % of the population is responsible for these crimes against Danish women.

In nearby Sweden it was worse, much worse: 2100 rapes in a year, reported. The un-reported is estimated to be 10 times more, i.e. 20.000. In a small population of 8.9 million people. They have taken more than double the immigrants than Denmark, and have risen from the lowest violent-crime country in the world, to US level in just 25 years.

Only in the last ten years crimes have risen by 30 % - especially against women.


The reality is Muslim men seem european women, none muslims women are subclass and believe it's ok to rape them. These muslim men seem to be sexual predators, thirsty for sex. Who knows how many have thoughs of raping european women and don't do it.