Christian teenager beaten to death by classmates in Pakistan

Pakistan hang your head in shame! Utter disgrace!

A Christian teenager has been beaten to death by his classmates in Pakistan. 

Sharoon Masih was the only Christian in his year and was attacked after he apparently drank from the same glass as a Muslim.

The 17-year-old had only been at MC Model Boys Government School Burewala in Punjab for three days before the incident. 

Link

INTERNATIONAL This Pakistani Man Who Married A Girl For “UK’s Visa”, Gets Jailed After Beating Her With A Hammer

Deport this POS! 

So, this guy, he goes by the name Mohsin Akram unleashed the barbaric animal inside him to deal with his poor wife who just did not prepare dinner for him. He said that he wanted to teach her “how to be a good wife”. He’s 21 and before incurring his wrath on her reportedly told her, “you’ve had your chance to be a good wife,” reported prosecutor Stephen Donoghue. Afterward, he subjected her to a 10-minute attack. Not to forget, Mohsin was drunk and they were at their home in Cardiff.

The couple met on Facebook in August 2013 and Mohsin got married to the girl since he wanted a visa to the UK. He would not allow his wife a cell phone with access to the Internet. It was also reported that during the night he attacked his wife, Mohsin returned home fully drunk. He lost his temper after finding out that his wife didn’t cook dinner for him. Their four-month-old baby was present during the scene when the father beat the mother. She managed to flee the scene somehow after getting maimed and abused.

His wife, Mrs. Hussain, reportedly begged a group of girls out on the street to help her. One of the girls mentioned: “Even though it was night-time, we stood underneath an outdoor light and could clearly see she had cuts and a bruise on the side of her hand.” Mohsin is now jailed for 15 months after pleading guilty but is not going to be deported back to Pakistan, unfortunately.

link

https://www.parhlo.com/pakistani-man-jailed-abroad/

Here are 6 crazy things Israel has done to maintain racial purity

Israel bills itself as the Middle East’s only democracy, but it is increasingly clear that this label depends a lot on how you define the Middle East, and how you define democracy. Perhaps the sharpest dissonance between the description of Israel as a liberal democracy and its actual policies is the drive for racial purity.

Israel insists on being the historic homeland for the world’s Jews, something few would disagree with. But it also insists on being a Jewish-majority country, at all costs. In order to maintain its Jewish majority, it must demonize non-Jews, particularly Muslims and Christian Arabs, as “demographic threats.”

Here are six crazy things the Israeli government or the Israeli people have done to maintain this racial makeup.

1. No-Sex Contracts: In 2003, an Israeli company importing Chinese workers required them to sign a contract agreeing not to marry or have sex with any Israelis. No legal action was taken against the company, as Israel has no laws protecting workers from such demands.

2. Birth Control Without Consent: For years, the Israeli government was injecting Ethiopian Jewish immigrants with birth control, “often without their knowledge or consent.” When the practice was exposed in 2013, it was ordered to be halted.

3. Deporting Non-Jews: Anyone in the world with Jewish lineage can move to Israel and claim citizenship. But if you’re not Jewish, things can be dicey. Many refugees from African conflicts have fled to Israel to claim asylum. Israel has locked many of them into massive camps in the desert. It has granted asylum to 0.07% of those seeking it, deporting many others. NPR recently did a story on some refugees who were deported, only to be slain by ISIS.

4. Stripping Palestinians of Land Rights: The Israeli Supreme Court recently laid out two decisions essentially allowing Israel the right to demolish Palestinian communities within Israel itself—not the Occupied Territories—to clear land for Jewish Israelis.

5. Discriminatory Marriage Laws: In the United States, marriage is one of the ways a spouse can gain legal entry through a green card and citizenship. Israel prohibits its citizens from marrying Palestinians in the territories, by refusing to recognize their spouses as citizens. Israel also has no civil marriage law, leaving the institution in the hands of religious clerics who work to prevent interracial marriage.

6. Right Of Return, For Jews Only: The most systematic policy designed to maintain a Jewish majority is the Law of Return. Under this law, Jews can come to Israel from anywhere in the world and claim citizenship, but Palestinians expelled after various wars from homes that were in Israel cannot. The double standard was expressed by Ghada Karmi and Ellen Siegel, a Palestinian woman and a Jewish woman who met in London in the early 1970s. They have posed multiple times with these signs over the years:

These laws, norms, and practices form a matrix with one goal: to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel. (In the case of the birth control given to Ethiopian Jews, it was also an example of trying to maintain a certain type of Jewish majority.)

Source

Aung San Suu Kyi's Comments on Muslims Expose Endemic Anti-Muslim Prejudice

I admired this woman since I was a child now I'm horrified by her. :(

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's interview with the BBC during her visit to the UK, has shocked many of her admirers. Despite being repeatedly pressed to do so, she repeatedly avoided giving a clear unequivocal condemnation of the anti-Muslim violence that is engulfing Burma.

Given the opportunity to clearly condemn attacks against Muslims, she repeatedly refused to do so. Instead she generalised by saying she condemned all violence and hatred. She has moral authority like no other person in Burma. When she speaks, people listen. If she strongly condemned attacks on Muslims it would make a difference. It could calm the situation. But she didn't. Instead, she went beyond just trying to explain why the violence was taking place, and sounded like she was making excuses for it. First she did this by saying it was because Buddhists were also living in fear. How can this be true? Buddhists are by far the biggest majority in Burma. Secondly she talked about Buddhists also being subjected to violence and having to flee Burma. The overwhelming majority of violence has been Buddhists attacking Muslims, not the other way around. No Buddhists have fled Burma because of attacks by Muslims. They fled because of repression by the Buddhist led dictatorship. Even if there was real fear as she claims, that doesn't justify people taking to the streets and burning alive their Muslim neighbours.

In the past 16 months alone, 140,000 Rohingya Muslims have been forced to flee to squalid temporary camps. This compares to less than five thousand Rakhine Buddhists who fled homes after tit-for-tat attacks when violence against Rohingya began in June last year. Why is Aung San Suu Kyi trying to portray this as two sides suffering equally, when the facts prove this is not the case?

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi also started talking about global Muslim power, as if this is some kind of threat to Burma? To hear a Nobel Peace Prize winner talking in the same way about Islam as bigots and racists is very disappointing. There are conspiracy theories about a global Muslim conspiracy to take over Burma, but these kind of things are spread by crazy people on Facebook. It is not what you expect from a University educated leader of a democracy movement. Instead of dismissing these claims as the dangerous nonsense they are, she gave them credibility in the eyes of many Burmese.

When Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was asked about the Monk Wirathu, who incites hatred and violence against Muslims, she also avoided criticising him, again just using generalisations saying she condemns hate of any kind. This hasn't gone unnoticed in Burma.

Perhaps one of her most revealing comments was when she talking about Muslims integrating. She was not only talking about the Rohingya. She was talking about Muslims generally. How and why do people who are native to Burma, having lived there countless centuries, need to integrate? They are Burmese, and unlike most Rohingya Muslims, they have Burmese citizenship. Most have never even travelled abroad, and nor have any of their ancestors. But Aung San Suu Kyi doesn't seem to see them that way. She sees them as different and needing to integrate. Seeing as the only difference is their religion, does she share the common view among many Buddhists in Burma that Muslims are not real Burmese?

Full article: