Egyptian woman killed in German court for being veiled
 

Hi,

http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/0...-being-veiled/

This woman was from my city .

I just want to ask what would you say if a Muslim killed a western ?

This story is misrepresented by the headline you have assigned it. It proves only the human propensity for passionate disagreement. The fact that the stabbing took place in Germany (and in a courtroom) is irrelevant to the point you're trying to make.

It was a horrific murder. A neo-Nazi stabbed the woman 18 times in court when she sued him for harassment. She was pregnant, and her 4-year-old was also in the courtroom and saw her die.

The court security guard mistakenly shot the woman's husband when he tried to defend his wife from the neo-Nazi.

German leaders made a huge mistake by not speaking out strongly about this, right away.

Will some one please post statements from Muslim leaders condeming the murder of film director Theo van Gogh... shot 8 times, nearly decapitated, and left with two knives implanted in him?

Thanks. I'm waiting.

While testifying in court, a plaintiff is murdered by the defendant, and the incident is not major news.

Theo van Gogh's murder was extensively reported.

I want to know how he got a knife in a courtroom and was able to stab her 18 times without being restrained.

My post was in reference to the immediatly preceding thought.

--------

(And BTW: if we want to get technical the attacker was not a Westerner... not a European.)

Futhermore the press here is often criticized for giving not enough coverage to Muslim crimes... there have been fathers killing daughters for not weraing headscaves etc. The reason given for keeping the coverage low-profile is to not enflame. I'm wondering if that may have been the motive here.

--

The thought I get from post #3 is that the incident was ignored by both the press and the German government.

It made the BBC. Not a major headline though.

There is the post.

And then there is "the immediatly preceding thought".

"the immediatly preceding thought" was:

"German leaders made a huge mistake by not speaking out strongly about this, right away."

My response to that was:

"Will some one please post statements from Muslim leaders condeming the murder of film director Theo van Gogh... shot 8 times, nearly decapitated, and left with two knives implanted in him?"

---------

BTW: I do not disagree with the "immediately preceding thought".

Give me a break.

Since when don't you consider the context in which a post is made? Should I bother to dredge up examples where you've brought this up?

???

I fully and immediately realized that my post needed clarification and posted the following:

"My post was in reference to the immediatly preceding thought."

Have you had your coffee yet?

I'm familiar with the MO:

1. Post a general comment.

2. If it sticks, so be it.

3. If challenged, retreat behind "I was referring to...", but remain vague.

4. If challenged again, "I meant this sentence."

Give it a rest.

According to the court, he is "a Russian of German descent who had immigrated to Germany in 2003."

I don't know; technically, what is that? (As if it matters).

Whoa... I am sorry, but I have no idea of what you are talking about.

Follow the thread.... After your post:

"The thought I get from post #3 is that the incident was ignored by both the press and the German government."

First of all you were entirely correct.

And I realized that my post needed clarification.

And so I clarified it... the fact is: I was refering to the preceding thought... read the thread... follow it. Note too: I made no argument with anyone... certainly not with your posts and thoughts on the subject.

There is no vagueness or hiding behind anything. And certainly no bad will.

It is hilarious that you chalk-up good behavior as MO.


---

And yes indeed: the attacker "was a Russian"... you posted it yourself. But as I mention: "if we want to get technical..."

--

HEY!

Both of you, CUT IT OUT ALREADY!

Zip, you are taking it way too personally (I know, like I should [type]).

Fab, interesting you relate "Muslim" on the same level of "German" and somehow excuse the lack of response of the German GOVERNMENT to the lack of comments by a group of religious leaders that are not clearly defined or want to take any real close contact to a horrific crime.


First, I do not equate the "leaders" of a religion to the elected officials of a government, and second, when does the abstinance of one persons reaction condemning a horrible crime validate the same from another? We are not even talking "sides" here.

Your statement reads, in the order of the posts I have read here for the first time, "Well, they did nothing so why should [we] do anything?"

And I know you aren't German, so relax on that.


Point is, you kind of flinged that little bit of bloody poo into the forum and got a reaction. I don't care how much you try to explain the poo and validate your statement, it is still poo. Be an adult and apologise already. You ain't perfect you know, no matter how many times the mirror tells ya! http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.png

Oh, and to add to the OT, Mohamed, your title is very misleading.

The guy did not kill her because of a veil.

The thread might be more aptly named "Egyptian woman killed by Nazi in court" or something like that, and then explain it a bit more in the post.

This almost makes it sound like the court killed her! http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.png

Ninja: In the Muslim world religious and government leaders are often the same thing.

In respnse to this statement -

"German leaders made a huge mistake by not speaking out strongly about this, right away."

I simply ask : "Will some one please post statements from Muslim leaders condeming the murder of film director Theo van Gogh... shot 8 times, nearly decapitated, and left with two knives implanted in him?"

I make no further statement... no editorializing.... take it for what you will... go off on a million tangents if you like... but I ask.

Well?

As I said: "I'm waiting".

---

And by the way, your :

No... you cut it out. I was explaining myself, I think, in a civil way to someone who was making accusations. I will continue do that when I see fit.

--

Sorry mate, I'm a real dummy, not a cheap doll http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.pnghttp://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...es/biggrin.png
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/b...onkey/42_1.jpg

Maybe this pic would have been a better choice
than the one I first choose?!
http://i499.photobucket.com/albums/r...y/IMG_7353.jpg