Honor Killings Persist in "Man's World"

[Kanastrous]

Posted: Friday, September 12, 2008 8:37 AM
Filed Under: Islamabad, Pakistan

By NBC News’ Shahid Qazi and Carol Grisanti

BABAKOT, Pakistan – In a tangle of bushes and trees outside a remote village in southwest Pakistan, six close male relatives of three teenage girls dug a 4-foot wide by 6-foot deep ditch, on a sweltering night in mid-July, and allegedly buried the girls alive.

The girls' crime: they dared to defy the will of their fathers and the customs of their tribe and choose their own husbands. The mother of one of the girls and the aunt of another were shot and killed while begging for the girls’ lives, according to local media reports.

The incident has touched off widespread condemnation from human rights groups, but also a sturdy defense from local officials. "This action was carried out according to tribal traditions," said Israrullah Zehri, a senator representing Balochistan in the upper house of Pakistan’s parliament in the capital Islamabad. "These are centuries-old traditions and I will continue to defend them," he said.

We visited the scene and interviewed locals to try and learn more about this gruesome crime.

Saarang Mastoi is the local journalist who broke the story. He told us that on July 14, Fatima, Fauzia and Jannat Bibi, aged 16 to 18, got into a taxi in Babakot, a small village of farmers and sheepherders in Pakistan’s Balochistan province, and drove about one hour to the village of Usta Mohammed to meet their boyfriends. The girls were chatting in the back of the taxi about their plans to meet the boys at the local restaurant and then go to a civil court to marry them.

The taxi driver dropped the girls off and then drove straight back to Babakot to inform their families about the secret plans he had overheard in the back of his taxi, according to Mastoi.

The girls’ decision to elope came after their male relatives and tribal elders had refused them permission to marry the boys of their choice because they were from another tribe.

The families of the girls belong to the wealthy feudal Umrani tribe in Balochistan. The uncle of one of the girls is a minister in the Balochistan provincial government and a deputy leader of the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), according to an investigation into the incident by Human Rights Watch.

Almost immediately after the taxi driver’s return, a posse of male relatives, including fathers, uncles and brothers, set out from Babakot for the village of Usta Mohammed to bring the girls home. The men arrived in land cruiser jeeps bearing Balochistan government license plates – one belonging to the district mayor, according to Human Rights Watch.

The girls were kicked, punched and then pushed into the vehicles at gunpoint, Mastoi, the journalist, said. Once back at home in Babakot, the girls were beaten again and interrogated by their fathers and uncles for almost one hour before their "verdict" was announced.

They would be killed – buried alive.

The girls were dragged into vehicles and taken to the end of a back road in Babakot accompanied by two female relatives, according to media reports. The men dug ditches and ordered the girls to be thrown in. When the female relatives saw the ditches, they tried to intervene and begged for the girls’ lives, according to local media reports.

There was "pandemonium at the site," according to the findings of the Asian Human Rights Commission, and a tribal elder gave orders to shoot the two older women. They died immediately and were thrown into the wide ditch. The three girls, who were wounded in the gunfire but still alive, were then thrown in and covered with sand and mud.

In Pakistan’s rural areas, male tribal councils decide the fate of women who bring dishonor to their family. In 2004, President Pervez Musharraf outlawed the practice, known as "honor killings" – violations of the law carry the death penalty. But the law is impossible to enforce because this centuries old custom for dealing with women is protected by powerful feudal landlords and tribal elders.

Mastoi, the local reporter, told NBC News that "powerful people" from the Umrani tribe had threatened him and warned him of consequences if he continued to report the story. He said that everyone in the village knew what happened and shortly after the murders, a couple of shepherds in the area had taken him to see the actual burial site. "Now everyone is too afraid to talk," he said.

Only about 7,000 people live in Babakot, a run down and dusty place about 200 miles south of the provincial capital, Quetta. Donkey carts carrying women, children and poor farmers give way on the road to the shiny 4X4 Land Cruisers of the wealthy landowners and tribal chiefs.

Ali Baksh, a frail shepherd with a thin scruffy white beard, has been tending his sheep in the neighboring district of Naseerabad since he was seven years old. When asked what he thought about the murders in Babakot, he stared blankly for a few seconds and then he said, "I am proud of our Balouch traditions and it was the right punishment for those girls who defied the will of their fathers."

Public outcry by human rights groups and lawmakers has forced the federal government in Islamabad to open an investigation into what happened in Babakot six weeks ago.

But the Asian Human Rights Commission believes a full accounting of the events may be impossible: "The Balochistan police have removed three of the five bodies and started destroying any evidence that might prove useful to an eventual investigation."

Back in Babakot, the reaction of an elderly woman to questions about the story seemed to confirm the human rights groups' fears. When asked about the story, she refused to give her name, sighed and waved off any hope for justice in this case. "It’s a man’s world and these things will never stop," she said.

---

It's the sadism of the 'punishment' that's remarkable, to me. Not a quick coup-de-grace by bullet, blade, or blunt instrument, but a death purposely designed to maximize the victims' suffering.

There's your basic religion of peace.

[Edi]

I heard of this story a while ago. There are no redeeming qualities whatsoever in the tribal cultures of Central Asia and that's exactly what this bullshit is. It doesn't help that the similar shit in the Koran just allows them to reinforce it as much as they like. And there is nothing really that can be done about that shithole. It has been a shithole for thousands of years and it will remain so for thousands more. The biggest problem is that they are breeding like rabbits and the people who don't stay there try to take that shit with them to other places as well.

[Junghalli]

It's the sadism of the 'punishment' that's remarkable, to me. Not a quick coup-de-grace by bullet, blade, or blunt instrument, but a death purposely designed to maximize the victims' suffering.

That sort of thing was very common in pre-modern times, when executions were often concieved of as a sort of advertisement. You were supposed to take a look at the poor bastard being killed in some horrible way and go "wow, I really don't want to end up like that guy, I better not do what he did".

Given what they were killed for I wouldn't be surprised if that factor was at work. The guys who did this wanted to make an example for others who might be tempted to do the same thing.

Isn't humanity a wonderful species?

[Big Phil]

The biggest problem is that they are breeding like rabbits and the people who don't stay there try to take that shit with them to other places as well.

Given that they are practicing their own version of population control I doubt they'll be outpacing the west in population anytime soon. I'd be more worried about being overrun by Mormons if I were you...

[[R_H]]

They even shot and killed their own mothers/sisters/aunts just because they begged to spare the lives of the girls? Absolutely incredible.

[CJvR]

They even shot and killed their own mothers/sisters/aunts just because they begged to spare the lives of the girls?

They probably were shot mainly for their defiance, if they were willing to go against the judgement of the men then and there they would likely go running to authorities afterwards.

Carpet nuking Hindu-kush is sounding better every time I hear it...

[Aaron]

They even shot and killed their own mothers/sisters/aunts just because they begged to spare the lives of the girls? Absolutely incredible.

Be thankful they didn't gang rape them first, that seems to be the usual procedure in these cases.

[Broomstick]

I don't care how old these fucking traditions are, they should stop.

If it is their tradition to kill defiant women, well, then, it is our tradition to kill men who kill other people regardless of their gender. I propose that if they follow their custom we should follow up with ours.

[darthbob88]

I don't care how old these fucking traditions are, they should stop.

If it is their tradition to kill defiant women, well, then, it is our tradition to kill men who kill other people regardless of their gender. I propose that if they follow their custom we should follow up with ours.

Because nobody's posted it yet,

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

This should be made our slogan on this site.

Double post deleted.~RI

[Guardsman Bass]

I wonder why it's so especially nasty and brutal in that particular area. Most of the honor killings I've heard of elsewhere usually kill the girl "only" by cutting her throat, which is at least quick if done right. But burying alive?

[RedImperator]

I don't care how old these fucking traditions are, they should stop.

If it is their tradition to kill defiant women, well, then, it is our tradition to kill men who kill other people regardless of their gender. I propose that if they follow their custom we should follow up with ours.

Great. All we have to do now is invade and occupy Pakistan.

Carpet nuking Hindu-kush is sounding better every time I hear it...

So you propose to stand up for the rights of Pakistani women by incinerating them with nuclear weapons? Last I checked, there isn't an "Only kill the assholes" setting on any of our warheads.

[Broomstick]

I don't care how old these fucking traditions are, they should stop.

If it is their tradition to kill defiant women, well, then, it is our tradition to kill men who kill other people regardless of their gender. I propose that if they follow their custom we should follow up with ours.

Great. All we have to do now is invade and occupy Pakistan.

The US is already in Pakistan. If you recall, a group that had taken over Afghanistan actually did perpetrate an attack on US soil, which is a sure way to get the wrong kind of American attention. It's no secret that they did and still do hang out in certain areas of Pakistan, which the Pakistanis either can not or will not clear out. If moping up Al Qaeda just happens to take out these barbarian murderers I won't shed a tear for them and their prehistoric, sadistic "customs".

The truth is that the war in Iraq was a blundering distraction - we should have concentrated on Afghanistan and the "autonomous" regions of Pakistan where Al Qaeda and the Taleban take refuge.

[Adrian Laguna]

The truth is that the war in Iraq was a blundering distraction - we should have concentrated on Afghanistan and the "autonomous" regions of Pakistan where Al Qaeda and the Taleban take refuge.

A distraction which incidentally decreased the rights of women relative to men's in several areas of the Iraq. Saddam may have been an utterly despicable bastard in many respects, but he was a secular bastard.

[RedImperator]

I don't care how old these fucking traditions are, they should stop.

If it is their tradition to kill defiant women, well, then, it is our tradition to kill men who kill other people regardless of their gender. I propose that if they follow their custom we should follow up with ours.

Great. All we have to do now is invade and occupy Pakistan.

The US is already in Pakistan.

First of all, no, we're not. We're in Afghanistan, and conducting occasional raids into Pakistan that may well be doing more harm than good. That's not an occupation or even an invasion. Second, this incident didn't occur in the Northwest Tribal Areas, it happened in Balochistan, a province of Pakistan proper, and if you think sending Predators and special forces into the NWTA has caused a shitstorm, just imagine what attacking an area the central government actually controls will do.

If you recall, a group that had taken over Afghanistan actually did perpetrate an attack on US soil, which is a sure way to get the wrong kind of American attention. It's no secret that they did and still do hang out in certain areas of Pakistan, which the Pakistanis either can not or will not clear out.

Try "can not". Neither could the British, neither could anyone else who's ever conquered that part of the the planet. At any rate, are you seriously suggesting we use the al-Qaeda and Taliban presence in the tribal areas as an excuse to militarily occupy western Pakistan and stamp out barbarian misogynist customs?

If moping up Al Qaeda just happens to take out these barbarian murderers I won't shed a tear for them and their prehistoric, sadistic "customs".

"Mopping up" Al Qaeda (as if what we're doing constitutes "mopping up" anything) won't make a dent in these customs. You paraphrased Charles Napier, who famously led a mostly-successful effort to stamp out widow burning in India. Well, the British occupied India for eighty-nine years, and that's only counting the time the subcontinent was ruled directly by the British government, instead of the East India Company. Are you willing to commit to an occupation of Pakistan, a Muslim nation with a modern military and 150 million citizens, until the year 2097?

And all this so far is ignoring the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear power. You don't invade nations with nuclear weapons, even if you have nuclear weapons yourself. Either you destroy them completely, or you put up with their bullshit, because if they decide to use nuclear weapons to defend themselves, you'll lose entire armies and wind up nuking them flat anyway. There is no military solution to this problem, no matter how satisfying it would be if there were. Iraq has nothing to do with it; even without that distraction, we wouldn't try to occupy any part of Pakistan.

[Ford Prefect]

A distraction which incidentally decreased the rights of women relative to men's in several areas of the Iraq. Saddam may have been an utterly despicable bastard in many respects, but he was a secular bastard.

There's a sad sort of irony to this. While Saddam was in power, the rights of women were protected, the law was secular and so on. I despise Pervez Musharraf like there is no tomorrow, but the fact that he outlawed honour killings is positive, so long as it wasn't just to look good in front of the world. That enforcing such a law is difficult is also saddening.

[Broomstick]

Great. All we have to do now is invade and occupy Pakistan.

The US is already in Pakistan.

First of all, no, we're not. We're in Afghanistan, and conducting occasional raids into Pakistan that may well be doing more harm than good. That's not an occupation or even an invasion. Second, this incident didn't occur in the Northwest Tribal Areas, it happened in Balochistan, a province of Pakistan proper, and if you think sending Predators and special forces into the NWTA has caused a shitstorm, just imagine what attacking an area the central government actually controls will do.

With Musharref gone I doubt Pakistan will remain our ally but instead declare for the other side.

We should have gone after the Taleban/Al Qaeda full bore instead of dicking around for 6 or 7 years and getting involved in Iraq. If the assholes fled or took refuges in a neighboring country too fucking bad for that country.

If you recall, a group that had taken over Afghanistan actually did perpetrate an attack on US soil, which is a sure way to get the wrong kind of American attention. It's no secret that they did and still do hang out in certain areas of Pakistan, which the Pakistanis either can not or will not clear out.

Try "can not". Neither could the British, neither could anyone else who's ever conquered that part of the the planet.

No - would not. There was and is a very effective means to elminate the threat from those areas permanently but no one felt it would be justified or could bring themselves to do it. Of course, as you point out, Pakistan now has nuclear weapons which makes that "solution" even more problematic than it would have been in 2001.

At any rate, are you seriously suggesting we use the al-Qaeda and Taliban presence in the tribal areas as an excuse to militarily occupy western Pakistan and stamp out barbarian misogynist customs?

No, I'm saying that where we already are we should stamp out those customs. I was not aware this particular atrocity occurred in a truly Pakistani-government controlled area, not being an expert on the geography there. Now that I know that I find it even more disturbing.

If moping up Al Qaeda just happens to take out these barbarian murderers I won't shed a tear for them and their prehistoric, sadistic "customs".

"Mopping up" Al Qaeda (as if what we're doing constitutes "mopping up" anything) won't make a dent in these customs. You paraphrased Charles Napier, who famously led a mostly-successful effort to stamp out widow burning in India. Well, the British occupied India for eighty-nine years, and that's only counting the time the subcontinent was ruled directly by the British government, instead of the East India Company. Are you willing to commit to an occupation of Pakistan, a Muslim nation with a modern military and 150 million citizens, until the year 2097?

As I said, there is at least one way to eliminate the problem a lot sooner than that.... but the collateral damage is unacceptable.

Don't doubt for a minute that I find such "customs" so unacceptable that I really would consider simply eliminating the cultures holding them. Fortunately, most days I'm a better person than that morally (I hope). In any case, I don't have a say in what happens to these contemptible beasts.

And all this so far is ignoring the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear power.

Well, it wasn't seven years ago, was it?

Either you destroy them completely, or you put up with their bullshit

Sometimes I get so sick of hearing about shit like this that destroying them starts to sound attractive.

because if they decide to use nuclear weapons to defend themselves, you'll lose entire armies and wind up nuking them flat anyway.

Funny... last time the US used nukes we managed to keep our military out of the way of them.

Actually, when Pakistan and India went toe-to-toe a few years ago with both having nukes we could have seen some really nasty stuff - I think there would have been some of India left, but although the evil side of me thinks an outbreak of hot war between the two might have solved some problems in this world I actually can't condone it, because there's no band-aid big enough to cover the resulting wounds.

There is no military solution to this problem, no matter how satisfying it would be if there were.

No, there is not ACCEPTABLE military solution.

Let's get real, the US military outclasses Pakistan IF we went all-out. I doubt very much that they could get a nuke to US soil before we turn them into a glassy crater.

Iraq has nothing to do with it; even without that distraction, we wouldn't try to occupy any part of Pakistan.

Occupy? No. Destroy? Yes - that is possible but we refrain from using that solution because the end does not justify a means that horrible.

Nonetheless, I will continue to be outraged at the senseless slaughter of women and the way they are reduced to domestic animals in such places. I will NOT pretend it is OK or something we should accommodate. It's wrong, just plain flat out wrong.

[Guardsman Bass]

The US is already in Pakistan.

First of all, no, we're not. We're in Afghanistan, and conducting occasional raids into Pakistan that may well be doing more harm than good. That's not an occupation or even an invasion. Second, this incident didn't occur in the Northwest Tribal Areas, it happened in Balochistan, a province of Pakistan proper, and if you think sending Predators and special forces into the NWTA has caused a shitstorm, just imagine what attacking an area the central government actually controls will do.

With Musharref gone I doubt Pakistan will remain our ally but instead declare for the other side.

The "other side"? Do you mean the Taliban? While they've gotten stronger in both the FATA plus a neighboring province, they've got almost no support in the Punjab (the largest, most populated, wealthiest part of Pakistan).

We should have gone after the Taleban/Al Qaeda full bore instead of dicking around for 6 or 7 years and getting involved in Iraq. If the assholes fled or took refuges in a neighboring country too fucking bad for that country.

I like how you so easily dismiss the immense dangers of invading a state of 150 million people that possesses nuclear weapons. Did you sleep through most of the Iraq debacle?

If you recall, a group that had taken over Afghanistan actually did perpetrate an attack on US soil, which is a sure way to get the wrong kind of American attention. It's no secret that they did and still do hang out in certain areas of Pakistan, which the Pakistanis either can not or will not clear out.

Try "can not". Neither could the British, neither could anyone else who's ever conquered that part of the the planet.

No - would not. There was and is a very effective means to elminate the threat from those areas permanently but no one felt it would be justified or could bring themselves to do it. Of course, as you point out, Pakistan now has nuclear weapons which makes that "solution" even more problematic than it would have been in 2001.

If by "permanently" you mean spending large numbers of troops and even larger amounts of money with no guarantee of success short of ethnically purging the Pashtun Tribe.

By the way, Pakistan had nuclear weapons before 2001 - they got them back in the 1990s, at the latest.

At any rate, are you seriously suggesting we use the al-Qaeda and Taliban presence in the tribal areas as an excuse to militarily occupy western Pakistan and stamp out barbarian misogynist customs?

No, I'm saying that where we already are we should stamp out those customs. I was not aware this particular atrocity occurred in a truly Pakistani-government controlled area, not being an expert on the geography there. Now that I know that I find it even more disturbing.

It is described as occurring in southwestern Pakistan, which means either the Punjab or Sindh Province. Neither is controlled by the Taliban, which means you'd pretty much be launching yourself into openly Pakistani government controlled territory.

If moping up Al Qaeda just happens to take out these barbarian murderers I won't shed a tear for them and their prehistoric, sadistic "customs".

"Mopping up" Al Qaeda (as if what we're doing constitutes "mopping up" anything) won't make a dent in these customs. You paraphrased Charles Napier, who famously led a mostly-successful effort to stamp out widow burning in India. Well, the British occupied India for eighty-nine years, and that's only counting the time the subcontinent was ruled directly by the British government, instead of the East India Company. Are you willing to commit to an occupation of Pakistan, a Muslim nation with a modern military and 150 million citizens, until the year 2097?

As I said, there is at least one way to eliminate the problem a lot sooner than that.... but the collateral damage is unacceptable.

The "nuke them into glass" method? It feels satisfying to imagine, but it's terrible geopolitics.

And all this so far is ignoring the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear power.

Well, it wasn't seven years ago, was it?

Either you destroy them completely, or you put up with their bullshit

Sometimes I get so sick of hearing about shit like this that destroying them starts to sound attractive.

Then is this basically just you doing a +1 "kill the fuckers!" post?

because if they decide to use nuclear weapons to defend themselves, you'll lose entire armies and wind up nuking them flat anyway.

Funny... last time the US used nukes we managed to keep our military out of the way of them.

It helped that we weren't trying to land troops at the nuking sites, and that the other side didn't have nukes.

Actually, when Pakistan and India went toe-to-toe a few years ago with both having nukes we could have seen some really nasty stuff - I think there would have been some of India left, but although the evil side of me thinks an outbreak of hot war between the two might have solved some problems in this world I actually can't condone it, because there's no band-aid big enough to cover the resulting wounds.

India would take a lot of punishment, but Pakistan would be a smoking crater if it turned into an all-out nuclear exchange between them.

There is no military solution to this problem, no matter how satisfying it would be if there were.

No, there is not ACCEPTABLE military solution.

Let's get real, the US military outclasses Pakistan IF we went all-out. I doubt very much that they could get a nuke to US soil before we turn them into a glassy crater.

No, but they can lob one at your military camps.

Iraq has nothing to do with it; even without that distraction, we wouldn't try to occupy any part of Pakistan.

Occupy? No. Destroy? Yes - that is possible but we refrain from using that solution because the end does not justify a means that horrible.

Nonetheless, I will continue to be outraged at the senseless slaughter of women and the way they are reduced to domestic animals in such places. I will NOT pretend it is OK or something we should accommodate. It's wrong, just plain flat out wrong.

Nobody's disputing that, but there's nothing we can do about it on the national level.

[Broomstick]

First of all, no, we're not. We're in Afghanistan, and conducting occasional raids into Pakistan that may well be doing more harm than good. That's not an occupation or even an invasion. Second, this incident didn't occur in the Northwest Tribal Areas, it happened in Balochistan, a province of Pakistan proper, and if you think sending Predators and special forces into the NWTA has caused a shitstorm, just imagine what attacking an area the central government actually controls will do.

With Musharref gone I doubt Pakistan will remain our ally but instead declare for the other side.

The "other side"? Do you mean the Taliban?

If burying young women alive for the "crime" of marrying someone other than who their father says they will is what Pakistan is... yes, they ARE my enemy, simply because I'm a woman. What difference does it make if the people killing me are tribal, Taleban, or a supposed "ally" of the US? I'm still dead, right?

We should have gone after the Taleban/Al Qaeda full bore instead of dicking around for 6 or 7 years and getting involved in Iraq. If the assholes fled or took refuges in a neighboring country too fucking bad for that country.

I like how you so easily dismiss the immense dangers of invading a state of 150 million people that possesses nuclear weapons. Did you sleep through most of the Iraq debacle?

I didn't say invade, I said destroy. You do understand the difference, yes?

No - would not. There was and is a very effective means to elminate the threat from those areas permanently but no one felt it would be justified or could bring themselves to do it. Of course, as you point out, Pakistan now has nuclear weapons which makes that "solution" even more problematic than it would have been in 2001.

If by "permanently" you mean spending large numbers of troops and even larger amounts of money with no guarantee of success short of ethnically purging the Pashtun Tribe.

Again, I did not say INVADE, I said DESTROY, eliminate, remove from the face of the earth. We actually don't have to invade to do that.

It is described as occurring in southwestern Pakistan, which means either the Punjab or Sindh Province. Neither is controlled by the Taliban, which means you'd pretty much be launching yourself into openly Pakistani government controlled territory.

If in Pubjab it's considered acceptable to bury people alive for ANY reason I frankly see little difference. I mean, yes, the groups can be distinguished from each other, but overall, from my viewpoint, not much difference as they all consider me less than a human being.

The "nuke them into glass" method? It feels satisfying to imagine, but it's terrible geopolitics.

Certainly. It's terrible geopolitics AND in this case morally unjustifiable - hence it is NOT an acceptable solution. Nonetheless, the possibility exists even if we have chosen not to take that path.

Either you destroy them completely, or you put up with their bullshit

Sometimes I get so sick of hearing about shit like this that destroying them starts to sound attractive.

Then is this basically just you doing a +1 "kill the fuckers!" post?

Um... no, I'm actually saying that we can't justify dropping nukes on Pakistan, however much our evil side would like do just that.

because if they decide to use nuclear weapons to defend themselves, you'll lose entire armies and wind up nuking them flat anyway.

Funny... last time the US used nukes we managed to keep our military out of the way of them.

It helped that we weren't trying to land troops at the nuking sites, and that the other side didn't have nukes.

If, back in 2001, we had decided to obliterate through nukes we wouldn't have sent any troops over. We'd just send bombers. Of course, that's not what happened.

Actually, when Pakistan and India went toe-to-toe a few years ago with both having nukes we could have seen some really nasty stuff - I think there would have been some of India left, but although the evil side of me thinks an outbreak of hot war between the two might have solved some problems in this world I actually can't condone it, because there's no band-aid big enough to cover the resulting wounds.

India would take a lot of punishment, but Pakistan would be a smoking crater if it turned into an all-out nuclear exchange between them.

Yes. And in an all-out exchange between the US and Pakistan the US would utterly destroy Pakistan whereas Pakistan would be lucky to get even ONE bomb to our soil. They might bomb and overseas US asset but that's not the same as hitting US soil properl

There is no military solution to this problem, no matter how satisfying it would be if there were.

No, there is not ACCEPTABLE military solution.

Let's get real, the US military outclasses Pakistan IF we went all-out. I doubt very much that they could get a nuke to US soil before we turn them into a glassy crater.

No, but they can lob one at your military camps.

As I said, if we had intended to go nuclear we wouldn't have sent any military people over there into harm's way.

Also, should we ever decide to nuke a country into oblivion the situation would likely be so severe that we actually would "trade" a "military camp" for an entire enemy nation. After all, in that scenario we still "win".

Iraq has nothing to do with it; even without that distraction, we wouldn't try to occupy any part of Pakistan.

Occupy? No. Destroy? Yes - that is possible but we refrain from using that solution because the end does not justify a means that horrible.

Nonetheless, I will continue to be outraged at the senseless slaughter of women and the way they are reduced to domestic animals in such places. I will NOT pretend it is OK or something we should accommodate. It's wrong, just plain flat out wrong.

Nobody's disputing that, but there's nothing we can do about it on the national level.

Incorrect. We most certainly COULD end this... but only at the cost of killing all the innocents along with the guilty as well as fucking up international relations for quite awhile. Plus, no doubt, other horribly consequences. Thus, the end does not justify the means. That does not mean, however, that the means don't exit. We just choose not to use them.

[Adrian Laguna]

And all this so far is ignoring the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear power.

Well, it wasn't seven years ago, was it?

Oh yes it was, Pakistan has had the ability to construct and initiate a nuclear device since 1987. However, it did not start testing atomic weapons until 1998. Compared to the US effort in the '40s, their devices are sub-par, but still extremely dangerous. Their three tests of strategic devices had yields of 9-12 kilotons for the first two, and 4-6 kilotons for the third. For comparison, the first three US devices had yields of 18kt (Trinity), 15kt (Little Boy), and 21kt (Fat Man).

Source: FAS.org

Actually, when Pakistan and India went toe-to-toe a few years ago with both having nukes we could have seen some really nasty stuff - I think there would have been some of India left, but although the evil side of me thinks an outbreak of hot war between the two might have solved some problems in this world I actually can't condone it, because there's no band-aid big enough to cover the resulting wounds.

India has more land area, more people, more military, and more atomics. On top of that, both their armed forces and their nuclear weapons are more sophisticated and dangerous than Pakistan's. Any war between the two would result in India taking a punch to the gut then curb stomping Pakistan. After that the Indians may or may not have to start slaughtering their Muslim population, depending entirely on whether said Muslims decide to behave or take-up arms in support of their Islamic brothers.

[Adrian Laguna]

And in an all-out exchange between the US and Pakistan the US would utterly destroy Pakistan whereas Pakistan would be lucky to get even ONE bomb to our soil. They might bomb and overseas US asset but that's not the same as hitting US soil proper.

Thanks to US deployments to the Middle East, but the large base at Diego Garcia, a Pakistani strike against US assets would likely kill at least 100,000 Americans.

[Shroom Man 777]

India's atomic weapons program bore fruit decades before Pakistan's, so India >>> Pakistan on both the conventional and strategic fields.

The Indians are also cooler. I mean, America had Trinity, but the Indians have Smiling Buddha.

Anyway, honor killings - like other practices including child soldiery, female circumcision, etc. - are really nasty things, but you can't stop them with invasions or military interventions. These are traditions and cultural obscenities ingrained in those shithole societies for thousands of years. There won't be an easy solution and when we're long gone, atrocities like honor killings will still continue on in places like Pakistan.

[Vehrec]

India's atomic weapons program bore fruit decades before Pakistan's, so India >>> Pakistan on both the conventional and strategic fields.

The Indians are also cooler. I mean, America had Trinity, but the Indians have Smiling Buddha.

Anyway, honor killings - like other practices including child soldiery, female circumcision, etc. - are really nasty things, but you can't stop them with invasions or military interventions. These are traditions and cultural obscenities ingrained in those shithole societies for thousands of years. There won't be an easy solution and when we're long gone, atrocities like honor killings will still continue on in places like Pakistan.

This is the perfect chance for US export Culture to take hold. We need to produce Movies, franchise businesses and general McWorld it up in their backyard until they are so distracted fighting our culture that a local feminist movement can get off the ground. If we can't occupy them and force them to take a secularist position, we can use the carrot and lure them to it instead.

[Shroom Man 777]

That may work, or it may not. Look at Saudi Arabia, a blend of Western culture brought about by wealth and decadence, plus a fucked up bunch of primitive medieval traditions.

Is it still an honor killing if it's a prostitute being beheaded (by the government)?

[Guardsman Bass]

Actually, when Pakistan and India went toe-to-toe a few years ago with both having nukes we could have seen some really nasty stuff - I think there would have been some of India left, but although the evil side of me thinks an outbreak of hot war between the two might have solved some problems in this world I actually can't condone it, because there's no band-aid big enough to cover the resulting wounds.

India has more land area, more people, more military, and more atomics. On top of that, both their armed forces and their nuclear weapons are more sophisticated and dangerous than Pakistan's. Any war between the two would result in India taking a punch to the gut then curb stomping Pakistan. After that the Indians may or may not have to start slaughtering their Muslim population, depending entirely on whether said Muslims decide to behave or take-up arms in support of their Islamic brothers.[/quote]

Even if they didn't, I would imagine there would be massive riots in India resulting in quite a few muslims dead.

[Imperial Overlord]

India already has plenty of religious strife without full scale conventional and nuclear war with Pakistan. Assholes like the BJP will pour gasoline on that fire. It'll be an absolute horror show on top of the nightmare (if you're not Shep) of a nuclear exchange.