Islamic honor killings - why the perps get off easy?

From the article....

"The rules of inter-caste marriages are complicated and extremely rigid in many rural communities in India, with some lovers even murdered in "honour killings" by relatives trying to protect their family's reputation."

"...Traditional Hindu society breaks down into brahmins (priests and scholars), kshatriya (soldiers), vaishya (merchants) and shudra (labourers). Below the caste system are the Dalits, formerly known as "Untouchables"."

 

I missed it. Thanks.

 

No problem.

Here's another article from Times which looks at other cases.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1991195,00.html

"Why Are Hindu Honor Killings Rising in India?"

 

did you kick him in his wrinkled old ball-bag?

 

Then you really are deluded.

 

Of all people who deserve your scorn, he should be pretty damn high on the list.

 

Since you didn't even bother to read the link you supplied:

For example, in North America, 91 percent of victims were murdered for being "too Western" as compared to a smaller but still substantial number (71 percent) in Europe. In comparison, only 43 percent of victims were killed for this reason in the Muslim world.

Now don't you look like a bigger idiot.

 

And Daniel Pipes gets this statistic from...?

Exactly.

But no, continue using the most non-objective sources you can find thinking you're actually proving a point.

You may even be more deluded than Hitler was.

 

Hinduism has been a more peaceful religion than islam, christianity, and judaism. In general hindus aren't out there trying to spread the religion, kill infidels, and condemning people to hell.

 

man...i dont understand how some of you don't get tired from arguing the same thing over and over with each other.

 

No, you keep purporting this 91% statistic, despite having no idea where it really came from. Where did Daniel Pipes get this number? What study did he take this from? What's the margin of error of that statistic? What's the sampling bias of that statistic? Can you or Daniel Pipes answer any of those questions? No, which is why reasonable people laugh at people who use Daniel Pipes to try to and prove a point. This is the same guy who went on for 6 months after Obama became President stating he was a former Muslim. Apparently he knows more about people than they know about themselves. This is the same guy who said America should be giving Saddam better weapons to fight Iran. This is the same guy who thinks America should destroy Iran nuclear facilities, while completely disregarding the consequences (Strait of Hormuz blockade). This is the same guy who said the United States should fund terrorists to fight against Iran.

And this is the guy you are using as a source to try and prove an asinine point.

 

Are you that stupid?

This study analyzes 172 incidents and 230 honor-killing victims. The information was obtained from the English-language media around the world with one exception.

Where is the citation where any of that information was received?

It isn't that difficult to make up statistics and say "this information was obtained by watching the news", which is exactly what your article is doing.

But no, go on thinking you're proving a point by using non-objective sources. It would be like Hitler saying the Jews are taking over and using the Protocols as evidence.

PS - Don't get too upset that I insulted your Führer.