Nearly half Saudi women are beaten at home. No surprise there...

The OP conclusion has been shown to be wrong. Here is the actual report:
http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/latifah/Documents/Dr.Latifah.doc
It can be seen that the sample of women were all separated/divorced, so was not a valid sample of Saudi women. Swearing or disrespecting the wife was classed as violent behaviour plus other factors that would not be classed as violent behaviour in the west.

 

What I find odd is that the report is from 2008 and the article in the OP was written by "staff". Was there an agenda here?

 

Duplicate. Slow server.

 

Good reasearch, taj. Maybe these anti-Islamic threads are simply to jack up the ' stature ' of the gangs' membership. They certainly look phony from the outset.

 

I have no problem stating that we should indeed address our own problems. The irony of the situation is that when it's pointed out that Saudi Arabia has an even bigger problem, their defenders can't say the same; that they should address the issue. All they can do is deflect upon everyone else.

Like I said, complete lack of self-awareness.

 

Debunking the thread's premise on scientific grounds is not ' deflection '. Taj did an excellent job on it. It then follows that the shrapnel from its implosion can be put to good use. Identifying real areas of domestic brutality , for example.

 

that's bull(*)(*)(*)(*) Moon, I use simple language, short words and large letters just for you

 

Why are you trying so hard to "debunk" the fact, muslim men abuse and beat up on their females? Would lower percentage from "almost half" to "nearly half" would make any difference?

 

The study's finding are FLAWED in so far as the thread's premise is concerned. That's been demonstrated. Curious images of foreigners with fly-swats won't change that.

 

Invalidation is hard-wired into Islamapologists! Ho hum. Yawn. **** What else is new ?

 

So maybe YOU would like to take the Quiz, so you you show us all how much you don't know about Islamization. And your statement about my Eid thread is incorrect and stupid.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do you ask such a dumb thing ?

 

Who said we aren't doing that ?

 

Oh give us a break.. the whole world knows that Saudi Arabia and every Muslim country is a hellhole for women, because of Islamic culture and the oppressive crap in the vile Koran, loaded with misogynist trash. All one has to do is read sura 4:34, and then proceed from there.

 

He's a Muslim, isn't he ? Lying is part of their culture (taqiyya). Never saw an Islamist yet who wasn't a full-blown, bald-faced liar.

 

I think it's a bad report too. Only 50%. Get real. Saudi is 100% Muslim. And it is the most devout to the Koran of all the Muslim countries, home of the origin of Islam, and where the Haj takes place. Women getting beaten at home by their husbands is probably close to that same 100% - (95% I'd estimate)

 

No it isn't. Jihad Watch is accurate, and I challenge you to present a shed of evidence that it isn't.

Invalidation is hard-wired into Islamapologists!

 

Just as I thought. More yakety yak from you, and nothing to back it up, including your worthless link, which doesn't connect with your claims.

 

Those Russian soldiers who joined up with the German Nazis, to fight against the Russians were ENEMIES of the Allied force in Europe. Are you familiar with the word "enemies" ? If I were in charge of the operation, there would have been no repatriation whatsoevfer. I would have shot and killed every single one of those Nazi-friendly low-lifes as the enemy combatants that they were.

Looking at your sources, they don't show "US slaughters and assaults on civilians" except maybe in Vietnam (where civilians and soldiers were one and the same). The troops of Russian General Vlasov were not civilians they were soldiers and I'd say they were dealt with mercifully by Eisenhower and the US State Dept. They would have not gotten that mercy if I were in charge.

 

Are you kidding ? I'd actually have to read that crap .

 

PARADIGM

Ha ha..ROLF…ahhh’… Mr Moon and the Usual suspects are persistent in their attempts to demonize any and all (from what I have seen) pro-Israal, pro West websites. As you point out your source Jihad Watch posts factual material and I doubt Moon can find many if any maliciously fraudulent articles.

Personally I urge people that are curious about the current ME tinderbox situation* to read both sides of the story from REPUTABLE sources such as books etc. However, even text books that our children read are being corrupted by not so covert rIslamic involvement. My advice is use the library and be very cautious and diligent when reading any material purported to be factual from either side**.

Notes; * Tinderbox situation means the events that will lead the ME, and maybe the world to war.

** By that statement I was proposing a suggestion that all governments I am aware of past and present can and often are immoral and unethical according to my value system. Of course morals/ethics are subjective and relative. With that in mind factual information about said governments and their activates etc (political military etc) should considered corrupt or are libel to be corrupt, even in the printed word. The statement does not apply to religious material.

reva

 

Would you be so kind as to provide a few (dozen?)* examples of malicious non-factual articles JW has published. I don’t often visit that site so the more info the better eh?

* lol

reva

 

Mebbe that’s why I don’t have a problem reading your stuff. Seriously in a general debate forum such as PF one must be tolerant and even accepting of ALL styles ALL grammar, bad or good including spellin' etc. However the most important trait we as members should embrace and love, tolerate and accept, especially the usual suspects, is exceptionally, sometimes brutally long sermons…er threads and replies by other members! (To be continued...see next reply or search for reva's threads )


reva

 

Dont you see something wrong with your premise? Here is a female doctor working in Saudi Arabia best university, publishing a report that surveyed 330 divorced/separated women regarding their relationship with their ex husbands/partners. She published this report on the internet. Everyone can see it. Is she being oppressed? Are those surveyed being oppressed? Have you even bothered to read the report? I wonder what proportion of western men have sworn at their wives!

- - - Updated - - -

One example is the actual OP we are discussing. No mention in JW that the women surveyed were all divorced/separated! No mention that swearing at your wife is classed as violence towards yor wife.

 

you know nothing about this subject

 

Perhaps women should start taking the moral high ground and insist they need to fornicate us into relationships, simply for the sake of honesty as a moral and form of respect toward fellow human beings.