100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: How Sharia Law Punishes Raped Women | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Maybe bush can invade pakistan before he leaves office and over throw those tyrants? Do they have any oil in Pakistan or wmds? Your partisan words in the face of this horrific crime against humanity shows where your heart lies. You don't care about people, you only care about your party. "13 year old girl raped and murdered? Great chance to get in a shot at Bush!" I wrote four sentences, with 44 words total and not one of them was hypocrisy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you say hypocracy I say sarcasim No...I didn't say either. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
spider what about if whats taken from your home is not a material possession, what if it is an act performed against your person without consent, who should pay then? should the victim be responsible for anothers actions? If you get mugged and the mugger breaks your jaw, you are responsible for the medical bills unless and until you bring the mugger to court and sue him for the medical bills. That's the way the law already works. I'm truly dumbfounded that everyone seems surprised that we don't financially punish people accused of crimes or that the government doesn't dole out cash to everyone who has been mistreated. Why dumbfounded, I have heard of Crime Victim Compensations Crime victim compensation is the oldest type of organized victim assistance in the United States. The first compensation program was created in 1965, and nine states were operating such programs by 1972, when the earliest programs providing other types of victim assistance were established. Today, compensation programs across the country are paying out close to $265 million annually to more than 115,000 victims. Fittingly, most of this money comes from offenders, since a large majority of states fund their programs entirely through fees and fines charged against those convicted of crime, rather than tax dollars. Federal grants to compensation programs, providing close to 25% of the money for payments to victims, also come solely from offender fines and assessments. Victims of rape, assault, child sexual abuse, drunk driving, and domestic violence, as well as the families of homicide victims, are all eligible to apply for financial help. Nationally, close to a third of the recipients of compensation are children, most of whom are victims of sexual abuse. http://www.nacvcb.org/articles/Overview_prn.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
spider what about if whats taken from your home is not a material possession, what if it is an act performed against your person without consent, who should pay then? should the victim be responsible for anothers actions? If you get mugged and the mugger breaks your jaw, you are responsible for the medical bills unless and until you bring the mugger to court and sue him for the medical bills. That's the way the law already works. I'm truly dumbfounded that everyone seems surprised that we don't financially punish people accused of crimes or that the government doesn't dole out cash to everyone who has been mistreated. Why dumbfounded, I have heard of Crime Victim Compensations Crime victim compensation is the oldest type of organized victim assistance in the United States. The first compensation program was created in 1965, and nine states were operating such programs by 1972, when the earliest programs providing other types of victim assistance were established. Today, compensation programs across the country are paying out close to $265 million annually to more than 115,000 victims. Fittingly, most of this money comes from offenders, since a large majority of states fund their programs entirely through fees and fines charged against those convicted of crime, [font=big]rather than tax dollars.[/font] Federal grants to compensation programs, providing close to 25% of the money for payments to victims, also come solely from offender fines and assessments. Victims of rape, assault, child sexual abuse, drunk driving, and domestic violence, as well as the families of homicide victims, are all eligible to apply for financial help. Nationally, close to a third of the recipients of compensation are children, most of whom are victims of sexual abuse. http://www.nacvcb.org/articles/Overview_prn.html Well, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Funded by the criminals and not tax payers. I don't see how we are differing on this. Could you explain? The criminals or victims should pay, not the tax payers. It's either the victims burden or the criminals penalty. Either way, the tax payers should be left out of it and it appears that most states agree with me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=5F848189-A45F-46C8-B02A-A8376AB4C512 On October 30, 2008, the United Nations condemned the stoning to death of Aisha Duhulowa, a 13-year-old girl who had been gang-raped and then sentenced to death by a Sharia court for fornication (Zina). She was screaming and begging for mercy, but when some family members attempted to intervene, shots were fired by the Islamic militia and a baby was killed. ... This is pure barbarism. The basest form of misogyny. Because she admitted to being raped and her attacker denied having raped her, she was found guilty of fornication and stoned to death. She was just a little girl who was attacked and she received the punishment for the crime. Horrible. The Sharia court should be ashamed of themselves. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
spider what about if whats taken from your home is not a material possession, what if it is an act performed against your person without consent, who should pay then? should the victim be responsible for anothers actions? If you get mugged and the mugger breaks your jaw, you are responsible for the medical bills unless and until you bring the mugger to court and sue him for the medical bills. That's the way the law already works. I'm truly dumbfounded that everyone seems surprised that we don't financially punish people accused of crimes or that the government doesn't dole out cash to everyone who has been mistreated. Why dumbfounded, I have heard of Crime Victim Compensations Crime victim compensation is the oldest type of organized victim assistance in the United States. The first compensation program was created in 1965, and nine states were operating such programs by 1972, when the earliest programs providing other types of victim assistance were established. Today, compensation programs across the country are paying out close to $265 million annually to more than 115,000 victims. Fittingly, most of this money comes from offenders, since a large majority of states fund their programs entirely through fees and fines charged against those convicted of crime, [font=big]rather than tax dollars.[/font] Federal grants to compensation programs, providing close to 25% of the money for payments to victims, also come solely from offender fines and assessments. Victims of rape, assault, child sexual abuse, drunk driving, and domestic violence, as well as the families of homicide victims, are all eligible to apply for financial help. Nationally, close to a third of the recipients of compensation are children, most of whom are victims of sexual abuse. http://www.nacvcb.org/articles/Overview_prn.html Well, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Funded by the criminals and not tax payers. I don't see how we are differing on this. Could you explain? The criminals or victims should pay, not the tax payers. It's either the victims burden or the criminals penalty. Either way, the tax payers should be left out of it and it appears that most states agree with me. Then maybe it's the delivery of your statements, spider. jmo Scenarios don't quite fit, but I now follow your train of thought - I think 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe bush can invade Pakistan before he leaves office and over throw those tyrants? Do they have any oil in Pakistan or wmds? G.W. Bush is a tyrant himself . Look to what he did in 8 years . He did what 90% of the US wanted done following 9/11. He did what most of the Democrats in Congress voted for him to do (and waiting 4 months to complain). He did what the socialist PM of Great Britain felt was best, even though it cost them both their popularity and careers. As far as the topic goes you can not say whatever you want without people responding !. What does any of this have to do with the OP? You can take pot shots at the President in your own thread, please focus on the topic of this discussion. G.W. Bush , the Republicans and their supporters are history as they LOST the presidency , the senate and the congress . I see no future for them in politics . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
iaman
on
Tue 11/18/08 01:21 PM
|
|
Double Post .]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What 90% wanted based on a lie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What 90% wanted based on a lie Based on lies , manipulation and propaganda . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
iaman
on
Tue 11/18/08 01:26 PM
|
|
Double Post .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What 90% wanted based on a lie Yes, but whose lie? Saddam Hussein's lie! Nearly every intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had WMDs or was near to having them. George Bush gets the SAME intelligence briefing as the Congressional Intelligence Committees. In 1998, Bill Clinton got approval to go to war with Iraq, but agreed to wait because the UN wanted to try the inspectors again. At least be honest about this stuff. None of this is secret, it's all well known. So many democrats are willing to tell outrageous lies just to destroy the President. It's horrible and shows exactly where our country is going. We are going to be torn apart by crazy conspiracies and partisan politics. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What 90% wanted based on a lie Yes, but whose lie? Saddam Hussein's lie! Nearly every intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had WMDs or was near to having them. George Bush gets the SAME intelligence briefing as the Congressional Intelligence Committees. In 1998, Bill Clinton got approval to go to war with Iraq, but agreed to wait because the UN wanted to try the inspectors again. At least be honest about this stuff. None of this is secret, it's all well known. So many democrats are willing to tell outrageous lies just to destroy the President. It's horrible and shows exactly where our country is going. We are going to be torn apart by crazy conspiracies and partisan politics. The whole world knows that G.W. Bush ,the Republicans and their supporters are the biggest LIARS ever to walk on earth . Thank God , they are all GONE now !. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What 90% wanted based on a lie Yes, but whose lie? Saddam Hussein's lie! Nearly every intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had WMDs or was near to having them. George Bush gets the SAME intelligence briefing as the Congressional Intelligence Committees. In 1998, Bill Clinton got approval to go to war with Iraq, but agreed to wait because the UN wanted to try the inspectors again. At least be honest about this stuff. None of this is secret, it's all well known. So many democrats are willing to tell outrageous lies just to destroy the President. It's horrible and shows exactly where our country is going. We are going to be torn apart by crazy conspiracies and partisan politics. The whole world knows that G.W. Bush ,the Republicans and their supporters are the biggest LIARS ever to walk on earth . Thank God , they are all GONE now !. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If we don't have the Intelligience network to find the truth, which was he didn't have WMD, then we shouldn't go to WAR .We put him in power and once we couldn't control him ,we took him out.That's the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
iaman
on
Tue 11/18/08 03:41 PM
|
|
If we don't have the Intelligence network to find the truth, which was he didn't have WMD, then we shouldn't go to WAR .We put him in power and once we couldn't control him ,we took him out.That's the truth. The truth is that Iraq has too much oil , Israel , the neo cons and the zionists wanted Iraq destroyed and the G.W. Bush Administration followed them and occupied poor Iraq . All the rest about intelligence is just pure fictional pretexts . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If we don't have the Intelligence network to find the truth, which was he didn't have WMD, then we shouldn't go to WAR .We put him in power and once we couldn't control him ,we took him out.That's the truth. The truth is that Iraq has too much oil , Israel , the neo cons and the zionists wanted Iraq destroyed and the G.W. Bush Administration followed them and occupied poor Iraq . All the rest about intelligence is just pure fictional pretexts . It's always nice to see people drumming up hate against the Jews. I don't see how people can post this kind of rhetoric without being banned for their racist remarks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have always said to be born a woman in North America is like winning the lottery ... women and children are not treated as well as livestock in many parts of the world.
It is outrageous and it needs to stop! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
snarkytwain
on
Wed 11/19/08 08:44 AM
|
|
I have always said to be born a woman in North America is like winning the lottery ... women and children are not treated as well as livestock in many parts of the world.
It is outrageous and it needs to stop! Completley agreed! I almost posted a reply to all the squabbling going on in this thread, but then ArtGurl reminded me what it's about. I don't care what your political opinions are, or what you think of the wars. The fact remains that in many parts of the world this disgusting atrocity happens... and many other atrocities with it. 99% of this is based on religion... fanatical religion. This means that in order to change it, education is needed, not violence. The problem with that, of course, is the leaders don't want education -- after all, it makes for very difficult control over their people, doesn't it? The people, when educated, tend to expect things from their leaders like rights and fairness... ...hm... sounds familliar... ANYway, I digress. I don't know what the answer is, but I do have more questions -- is it the right or duty of the United States to fix this as a world power? And if so, how can we better go about this? War can't possibly be the right answer, but with some [many] people, diplomacy doesn't work either. Not to mention that, in the end, our own government is out for their (read, not OUR), best interests as well. So... anarchy anyone? 
|
|
|
|
|
