NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256980,00.html

Damn Saudis punishing a woman who was raped.

Woman, 19, victim of brutal assault by 7 men, is sentenced to 90 lashes for 'crime' of being alone with man not related to her

well I guess under Saudi logic she had it coming :(

then again I’m left wondering how often incest occurs in Saudi Arabia:confused:

Until I see a source besides Fox News, I remain skeptical.

Well what do you expect from savages?

Well what do you expect from savages?

Winston Churchill, is that you?

Wait. It isn't. Quit trying to act like him - at least he had power and influence and importance, while you are more like a dirty fart made under cover of a sudden and loud sound.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256980,00.html

Damn Saudis punishing a woman who was raped.

...fucking stupid culture in Saudi Arabia...I find it absolutely disgusting.

Vile.

What did y'all expect in countries/societies under Sharia?

Winston Churchill, is that you?

Wait. It isn't. Quit trying to act like him - at least he had power and influence and importance, while you are more like a dirty fart made under cover of a sudden and loud sound.
Saudi culture is inferior. Sure, they've got some level of civilization, but they act like savages when they punish women who've been raped in order to appease their invisible man in the sky.

Oh, and you smell like poo.

Winston Churchill, is that you?

Wait. It isn't. Quit trying to act like him - at least he had power and influence and importance, while you are more like a dirty fart made under cover of a sudden and loud sound.

*sniggers*
You realise this response is exactly what DCD wants though, right?

Ugh, what a terrible sentence (and terrible that there is any sentence at all for the victim).

And how terrible that 'no means no' is a recent occurrence in the West as well. Though we just dragged the victim through the metaphorical mud in court and revictimised her, rather than giving her actual lashes. I suppose that's a bit of an improvement if you totally disregard the psychological impact.

Saudi culture is inferior. Sure, they've got some level of civilization, but they act like savages when they punish women who've been raped in order to appease their invisible man in the sky.

Blah blah blah. You fucking nazi, you're just too much of a PC coward to admit all the time. That's why you add shit like "act LIKE savages" as cowardly qualifiers. You're a chickenshit.

*sniggers*
You realise this response is exactly what DCD wants though, right?

Yeah. Trolls love negative attention.

Ugh, what a terrible sentence (and terrible that there is any sentence at all for the victim).

And how terrible that 'no means no' is a recent occurrence in the West as well. Though we just dragged the victim through the metaphorical mud in court and revictimised her, rather than giving her actual lashes. I suppose that's a bit of an improvement if you totally disregard the psychological impact.

Saudi Arabia is a nation of laws. There is no room for those who break the law!

Blah blah blah. You fucking nazi, you're just too much of a PC coward to admit all the time. That's why you add shit like "act LIKE savages" as cowardly qualifiers. You're a chickenshit.

Flame much?

Saudi Arabia is a nation of laws. There is no room for those who break the law!

And precisely what law did she break? I see you have ZERO regards for human rights..

Well what do you expect from savages?
^This.

But what pisses me off more is that we cooporate with these barbarians for our cheap oil prices. It pisses me off to see our leaders fly over there to have gay arabian sex and god knows what, just to save a few bucks.:( :mad:

This culture is a disgrace, and we should have nothing to do with it. Instead, we are "allies".:(

Blah blah blah. You fucking nazi, you're just too much of a PC coward to admit all the time. That's why you add shit like "act LIKE savages" as cowardly qualifiers. You're a chickenshit.



Yeah. Trolls love negative attention.



Saudi Arabia is a nation of laws. There is no room for those who break the law!

Wait...are you actually supporting this punishment? Because if so, then the slur of 'Nazi' is more than a tad hypocritical.

Anyway, what else would you call this punishment and system? It can hardly be called decent or civilised.

Blah blah blah. You fucking nazi, you're just too much of a PC coward to admit all the time. That's why you add shit like "act LIKE savages" as cowardly qualifiers. You're a chickenshit.
Wow, someone has a bit of sand in his vagina. I see you'd rather defend Saudi culture than oppose it.....well, good luck with you on that. I hope your girlfriend/boyfriend (if you're gay) ends up in Saudi Arabia and gets....the Saudi treatment.

This culture is a disgrace, and we should have nothing to do with it. Instead, we are "allies".:(

Ah yes. The great Middle Eastern double-standard.

I agree with (nearly) everyone on this thread. Crap like this has to stop.

Flame much?


I don't hold any higher regard for "cultural" supremacy than racial. It's the same thing, really.

"I'm not a racist, I have black friends!"

"I'm not a racist, I just hate black culture!"

Just add "culture" and it's OK to say anything. Jews aren't subhumans... but their CULTURE is! Wink wink.

And precisely what law did she break?

I think that was clear from the article?

I see you have ZERO regards for human rights..

Well you know. They're savages, and they're inferior. So if they're inferior savages, why should I have regard for their human rights?

This thread is getting NASTY!

I think DCD and Trostia should wrestle naked in green jello for the win!

You're defending a culture that punishes the rape victim and putting me down. You have no morality, no backbone to stand up for what's right, and no value as a human being.

Hear Hear

Blah blah blah. You fucking nazi, you're just too much of a PC coward to admit all the time. That's why you add shit like "act LIKE savages" as cowardly qualifiers. You're a chickenshit.



Yeah. Trolls love negative attention.



Saudi Arabia is a nation of laws. There is no room for those who break the law!

You're defending a culture that punishes the rape victim and putting me down. You have no morality, no backbone to stand up for what's right, and no value as a human being.

Trostia...

You cannot seriously be saying that you support a culture that lashes women for being raped?

...Can you?

Trostia...

You cannot seriously be saying that you support a culture that lashes women for being raped?

...Can you?It's pretty clear his focus is on the concept of cultural superiority as a corollary to racism, and not on the particular fact pattern in this case. Cultural superiority versus racism...one is 'okay' in a sort of PC sense, while the other is not...and yet they are essentially the same. Cultural superiority is how smart racists express themselves these days...though I think DCD is the lesser of that type in this thread.

Ah yes. The great Middle Eastern double-standard.
:(
I don't hold any higher regard for "cultural" supremacy than racial.
Meh, your mistake then.

This thread is getting NASTY!

I think DCD and Trostia should wrestle naked in green jello for the win!

I'll get the camera...

It's pretty clear his focus is on the concept of cultural superiority as a corollary to racism. One is 'okay' in a sort of PC sense, while the other is not...and yet they are essentially the same. Culural superiority is how smart racists express themselves these days...though I think DCD is the lesser of that type in this thread.

Frankly I don't give a damn about cultural 'superiority'; thats a piloe of crap as far as I'm concerned. However, to voice support for a culture or even government that uses this law and conducts these actions is...well, disgusting.

Wait...are you actually supporting this punishment?

Whether I support the punishment or the verdict is really irrelevant. Do you support each and every punishment, each and every law, each and every trial that has ever taken place in the United States?

Anyway, what else would you call this punishment and system? It can hardly be called decent or civilised.

I'm told the same thing about the US system, since it "murders" people with execution. It gets so confusing, who do I hate?

You're defending a culture that punishes the rape victim and putting me down.

Yeah I'm putting you down because you're a supremacist. You get off on being part of a superior "culture" and you get off on pointing out the "inferiority" of "savages."

Just like any nazi.

You have no morality, no backbone to stand up for what's right, and no value as a human being.

You're so good at juding the "value as a human being" of everyone, aren't you? Muslims and Arabs - they're subhuman, savage, inferior. Clearly valueless. Anyone who disagrees with your nazi rhetoric - no value as a human. My my, it must be lonely at the top, how is life as an ubermensch?

DCD is no racist. He simply has a strong view of what is right and what is wrong and doesn't accept any culture that says otherwise. He's a little harsh and blunt, but at least he's honest, unlike a lot of us who lie to ourselves while praising the ideals of cultural relavitism, which is total bullshit. I don't care who you are or what your culture is, you don't punish a rape victim, especially not with such a ridiculously harsh punishment.


Thats an even better way of what I'm trying to say.

Frankly I don't give a damn about cultural 'superiority'; thats a piloe of crap as far as I'm concerned. However, to voice support for a culture or even government that uses this law and conducts these actions is...well, disgusting.

What's your opinion on illegal immigration?

This thread is getting NASTY!

I think DCD and Trostia should wrestle naked in green jello for the win!

Naww... chocolate pudding. With marshmallows. While wearing g-strings. With mangos stuffed down the front. Kinda like tropical-fruit codpieces.

Now I'd pay to see that.

It's pretty clear his focus is on the concept of cultural superiority as a corollary to racism, and not on the particular fact pattern in this case. Cultural superiority versus racism...one is 'okay' in a sort of PC sense, while the other is not...and yet they are essentially the same. Cultural superiority is how smart racists express themselves these days...though I think DCD is the lesser of that type in this thread.

Culture is not genetically determined. Some people, both racist and non-racist do not realise that. Being of a certain race does not give you a right to do whatever is part of a culture populated by that race.

DCD is no racist. He simply has a strong view of what is right and what is wrong and doesn't accept any culture that says otherwise. He's a little harsh and blunt, but at least he's honest, unlike a lot of us who lie to ourselves while praising the ideals of cultural relavitism, which is total bullshit. I don't care who you are or what your culture is, you don't punish a rape victim, especially not with such a ridiculously harsh punishment.

Frankly I don't give a damn about cultural 'superiority'; thats a piloe of crap as far as I'm concerned. However, to voice support for a culture or even government that uses this law and conducts these actions is...well, disgusting.

The US exectues minors.

Yet I can still voice support for the American culture from time to time. I don't damn the whole thing based on human rights abuses conducted by people who are part of the American culture.

Whether I support the punishment or the verdict is really irrelevant. Do you support each and every punishment, each and every law, each and every trial that has ever taken place in the United States?



I'm told the same thing about the US system, since it "murders" people with execution. It gets so confusing, who do I hate?

Actually, it isn't irrelevant; your support or condemnation of such a punishment is quite relevant to this case. As to your question, no, of course I don't. As to the US system, it can hardly be said to be perfect; it is extremely flawed and biased, often towards minorities. However, even the US government and system does not execute or punish rape victims for the act of being raped, wheras the Saudi system does. Whilst neither are anywhere near perfect, the US system would appear to be the better of the two.

I'll get the camera...

I want floor seats!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256980,00.html

Damn Saudis punishing a woman who was raped.

Untill I see it on european media I'm skeptical.

Though, stuff like that does take place in Saudi Arabia.

The US exectues minors.

Yet I can still voice support for the American culture from time to time. I don't damn the whole thing based on human rights abuses conducted by people who are part of the American culture.

Then perhaps my use of culture was too broad; government would be far more accurate. My apologies.

Tropical fruit codpieces ftw!

I call grave-digging on good old Fox News. This story (http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=115654&version=1&template_id=37&parent_id=17) is from last November. I suppose they neglected to report it because of the US elections, ouldn't have people reminded of the administrations close ties to the House of Saud.

Saudi rape victim gets 90 lashes
Published: Friday, 3 November, 2006, 01:01 PM Doha Time

RIYADH: A Saudi court has sentenced a gang rape victim to 90 lashes of the whip because she was alone in a car with a man to whom she was not married.

The sentence was passed at the end of a trial in which the Al Qateef high criminal court convicted four Saudis convicted of the rape, sentencing them to prison terms and a total of 2,230 lashes.

The four, all married, were sentenced respectively to five years and 1,000 lashes, four years and 800 lashes, four years and 350 lashes, and one year and 80 lashes.

A fifth, married, man who was stated to have filmed the rape on his mobile phone still faces investigation.

Two others alleged to have taken part in the rape evaded capture.

Saudi courts take marital status into account in sexual crimes. A male friend of the rape victim was also sentenced to 90 lashes for being alone with her in the car.

The court heard that the victim and her friend were followed by the assailants to their car, kidnapped and taken to a remote farm, where the raping occurred.

The victim was quoted by Okaz newspaper as saying she had expected harsher penalties for the assailants, especially as they had pleaded not guilty.

Her husband and family said that they would appeal to the court Saturday for harsher penalties for a crime that has shocked public opinion in Saudi Arabia and been the subject of months of debate.

I personally think it's disgusting that the victim was punished, though to be fair, the perpetrators got way more lashes. What did David Lean have Lawrence say about the Arabs? "A little people, a silly people -- petty, barbarous, and cruel."

EDIT: Okay, one of the guys got only 80 lashes, but he did get a year in the slammer.

Actually, it isn't irrelevant; your support or condemnation of such a punishment is quite relevant to this case.

No, it's pretty damned irrelevant.

As to your question, no, of course I don't. As to the US system, it can hardly be said to be perfect; it is extremely flawed and biased, often towards minorities. However, even the US government and system does not execute or punish rape victims for the act of being raped, wheras the Saudi system does. Whilst neither are anywhere near perfect, the US system would appear to be the better of the two.

And that helps you sleep at night? You support a system which has executed innocent people for the crime of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or of the wrong color skin, or whatever. You think your personal disagreement with those "flaws" makes up for the fact that you not only morally support the system, but hold it up as "superior" to others while funding it? Your personal life, your money, are going to this system. You are not only morally complicit but practically so - can the same be said for your participation in Saudi Arabian system - no.

Perhaps then, that is why you dismiss US "flaws" but can afford the uber-righteous, high and mighty attitude towards foreign "savages." You aren't invested in or a member of the latter, no need to tiptoe.

However, even the US government and system does not execute or punish rape victims for the act of being raped, wheras the Saudi system does. Whilst neither are anywhere near perfect, the US system would appear to be the better of the two.

Better is recent.

Even in Canada, until 1983, a wife could not be raped by her husband. Rape ONLY included male on female penetration. A forced blowjob didn't count. A man raping a man, a woman raping a woman or a man...not rape. Women were dragged through the courts, their entire sexual history on display. Hardly enlightened behaviour. As bad as lashes? Well, that depends. The point is...we are scant decades ahead of the Saudis...so don't play the 'better' card too fast.

Cultural relativism, like any other belief has its limitations. Cases such as these are one of those limitation. As a cultural relativist, I would like to believe that Saudi culture is as important and valid as the cultures that have formed my upbringing. But if it culturally acceptable to punish a rape victim in Saudi Arabia, I have a hard time reconciling that with my belief in the equal validity of both cultures.

I must admit, however, that I have a bias. As a person who was raised in western cultures, I have this inherent belief that those cultures are better. So there is a lot of subjectivity to it. But there is some objectivity we can apply to the situation: punishing women for being raped is bad. Now, most western cultures are finally getting rid of those laws that punish women for being rape victims, while many middle eastern cultures are not.

So are we better than them? All I can say is that many western cultures are apparently better at changing their laws to respect women's rights, when compared to certain middle eastern cultures. This is something I have observed. I do not know if these observations can be used to supoort a theory of cultural superiority. I do not think so.

But to be honest, that is not the first question I think we should ask. I think the first question is what can we do to stop this happening again?

Then perhaps my use of culture was too broad; government would be far more accurate. My apologies.

Not really. Just because something is law, does not mean the culture itself supports it. Do all citizens of the US support the death penalty? Do all US citizens in the states that HAVE the death penalty support it?

Government reflects culture, but does not define it.

Winston Churchill, is that you?

Wait. It isn't. Quit trying to act like him - at least he had power and influence and importance, while you are more like a dirty fart made under cover of a sudden and loud sound.

The Saudi government and their religious police are savages. Ordinary Saudis, though, are not.

So are we better than them? All I can say is that many western cultures are apparently better at changing their laws to respect women's rights, when compared to certain middle eastern cultures. This is something I have observed. I do not know if these observations can be used to supoort a theory of cultural superiority. I do not think so. Excellent point, and I agree.

But to be honest, that is not the first question I think we should ask. I think the first question is what can we do to stop this happening again? The problem is that the quick answer is, 'export our culture!!!!!!'

It's a nasty thing. if she can't prove that she was raped, she'll be convicted (as she was here) for being alone with a man without being married. This may be the ugliest part of sharia - well, at least Saudi - law, as the victim suffers no matter how the rape case ends, and she'll be forced to choose whether to report it and risk this punishment or let the rapists go free. And another consequence:
The woman's ordeal began a year ago when she was blackmailed into meeting a man who threatened to tell her family they were having a relationship outside wedlock, which is illegal in the desert kingdom, according to a report in The Scotsman newspaper.
It can be used to blackmail women, like it happened here.

Instead, we are "allies".:(
Indeed, these are the good guys...

Indeed, these are the good guys...

No, they are merely allied with us for mutual benefit. Neither one of us like each other; indeed, the Saudi government despises the Unites States with as much hate as they can bring to bear. But they tolorate us because we provide them with money for their oil. I assure you, without it they would be a bitter enemy.

Seems reasonable. She was probably asking for it, anyway.

No, they are merely allied with us for mutual benefit. Neither one of us like each other; indeed, the Saudi government despises the Unites States with as much hate as they can bring to bear. But they tolorate us because we provide them with money for their oil. I assure you, without it they would be a bitter enemy.

I don't believe that. The house of Saud and the current president and his family aren't close to being enemies. And without the alliance and the oil there wouldn't be any animosity because the US would stay out of the country.

Too bad the US isn't using their influence and money to try to better the situation of women over there. I believe it could have been improved had the government chosen to be more active in that area.

I call grave-digging on good old Fox News. This story (http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=115654&version=1&template_id=37&parent_id=17) is from last November.


Yay! Someone posted a second source...I can now assume this event actually occured.

I can't say I'm shocked...Saudi Arabia isn't exactly known as a bastion of women's rights.

I can't wait till their oil runs out. It'll be nice when the ruling elite can't use energy exports to deflect criticism of their archaic laws.

Ahead of the Saudis on that particular issue.

The problem from both sides is that some people act like we should condemn an entire people because of the behavior of some that many in the culture or race don't agree with. Many Saudis would likely not support this punishment or similar laws. Generalizations ignore this. Exactly.

However, on the other side, some things are just plain wrong. Not wrong relative to other acts, but just wrong period. Lashing a woman for being raped. Wrong. GT acts like because it's legal it's okay, which is absurd and sad.
I'm going to go with what I know of GT and say he is not actually saying the punishment was okay. His comment on Saudi Arabia being 'a land of laws with no room for those who break the law' is a play on the same refrain used by anti 'illegals' in the US. Many of whom are the same people that like to blanket-generalise a culture based on a specific example like this.


The fact that we are more likely to apply the death penalty to minorities. Wrong. Placing more value on some humans over others based on the traits they were born with is wrong. It's that simple. DCD is wrong. GT is wrong. It's just that simple.
Ha, I'll agree with GT being wrong on one thing...he supports the death penalty :D

Better is recent.

Even in Canada, until 1983, a wife could not be raped by her husband. Rape ONLY included male on female penetration. A forced blowjob didn't count. A man raping a man, a woman raping a woman or a man...not rape. Women were dragged through the courts, their entire sexual history on display. Hardly enlightened behaviour. As bad as lashes? Well, that depends. The point is...we are scant decades ahead of the Saudis...so don't play the 'better' card too fast.

Ahead of the Saudis on that particular issue.

The problem from both sides is that some people act like we should condemn an entire people because of the behavior of some that many in the culture or race don't agree with. Many Saudis would likely not support this punishment or similar laws. Generalizations ignore this.

However, on the other side, some things are just plain wrong. Not wrong relative to other acts, but just wrong period. Lashing a woman for being raped. Wrong. GT acts like because it's legal it's okay, which is absurd and sad. The fact that we are more likely to apply the death penalty to minorities. Wrong. Placing more value on some humans over others based on the traits they were born with is wrong. It's that simple. DCD is wrong. GT is wrong. It's just that simple.

Cultures are like role models. We try to emulate and support the good traits and try to stomp out the bad traits. The problem with what GT is saying is that he is acting like admitting this is a travesty is racism or 'cultural superiority'. It's not. This was a travesty. It says nothing about the superiority of one culture over another.

I don't believe that. The house of Saud and the current president and his family aren't close to being enemies. And without the alliance and the oil there wouldn't be any animosity because the US would stay out of the country.

Too bad the US isn't using their influence and money to try to better the situation of women over there. I believe it could have been improved had the government chosen to be more active in that area.

The Saudis hate our guts. Of course, they happily kiss our asses and cozy up to us for our money.

However, on the other side, some things are just plain wrong. Not wrong relative to other acts, but just wrong period.

Oh, really. On what do you base some mythical, universal, objective morality on?

God?

Your own declaration?

The fact that you really, really dislike it?

GT acts like because it's legal it's okay

Well, some people act like because illegal immigration is illegal, it's wrong.

Wrong, period.

I'm just going off of their own "law = morality = objective" viewpoint. Nothing wrong with that.

DCD is wrong. GT is wrong. It's just that simple.

Hmm, no. According to you, DCD is correct. Just as some things can be "just plain wrong," it follows that some "cultures" can be "just plain superior." You may think you're being the voice of reason but you're only supporting supremacism and absolutism.

But they tolorate us because we provide them with money for their oil. I assure you, without it they would be a bitter enemy.

More like, you provide them the guns that keeps the royal family in power. If you look up their history, you will find that the current royal family was in obscurity and the British installed them. When the mantle of 'running the world' passed over from UK to US, the US simply inherited these legacies.

The Saudis hate our guts. Of course, they happily kiss our asses and cozy up to us for our money.

The saudis are the best friends money can buy, and the US is the snooty guy that goes around buying his friends. It's a match made in Hades. :)

It's pretty clear his focus is on the concept of cultural superiority as a corollary to racism, and not on the particular fact pattern in this case. Cultural superiority versus racism...one is 'okay' in a sort of PC sense, while the other is not...and yet they are essentially the same. Cultural superiority is how smart racists express themselves these days...though I think DCD is the lesser of that type in this thread.

Any culture that treats half it's members as second class citizens is nothing short of inferior.

Any culture that treats half it's members as second class citizens is nothing short of inferior.

Ah. So US and Canadian culture was inferior up until about two decades ago. Clear. Thanks.

Oh, really. On what do you base some mythical, universal, objective morality on?

God?

Your own declaration?

The fact that you really, really dislike it?

Yes, I'm a bad person because I KNOW people are born equal and that only bad, human behavior treats people as unequal. I'm so embarrassed to admit that I think that.

Behavior that victimizes a person for being a victim is wrong. And you're wrong to pretend like it isn't.



Well, some people act like because illegal immigration is illegal, it's wrong.

Wrong, period.

I'm just going off of their own "law = morality = objective" viewpoint. Nothing wrong with that.

They're wrong, just like you're wrong. Illegal is not the same as objectively wrong. For example, you're behavior in this thread is against site rules. That, however, has nothing to do with why you should ashamed of it. Their is something wrong with pretending like legal, means good. Because if that were true, laws would never change and we'd have to listen to the nonsensical defense of this behavior for eternity. As it is, it will likely pass away like most of these types of laws are doing.

Meanwhile, what do you think the basis is for creating laws? The idea that some things are just plain wrong. By supporting the laws, you're supporting that idea.




Hmm, no. According to you, DCD is correct. Just as some things can be "just plain wrong," it follows that some "cultures" can be "just plain superior." You may think you're being the voice of reason but you're only supporting supremacism and absolutism.

Nope. According to me, DCD isn't correct. Because generalizing is just that. You can try and make other claims, but your attempts to equate us fails on your inability to recognize the difference between individuals and broadly painting all members of a group for the behavior of some.

Cultures are not people. Individuals make up cultures and they are not part of some hive mind. Unless, I've somehow forgotten that, I can't possibly agree with DCD. You, however, being that you love to do the generalization thing have much in common with him.

Any culture that treats half it's members as second class citizens is nothing short of inferior.

The problem is that it's not inherent to the culture. There are many within the culture who don't believe that. The US has never had a female President. Does that mean American culture says women are inferior leaders or just that most people aren't motivated enough to change that view? I think the answer's obvious if you're paying attention.

Yes, I'm a bad person because I KNOW people are born equal and that only bad, human behavior treats people as unequal. I'm so embarrassed to admit that I think that.

Behavior that victimizes a person for being a victim is wrong. And you're wrong to pretend like it isn't.

Wow, defensive much. It's like arguing with a Jewish mother.

I didn't say you were a "bad person."

I happen to agree that blaming the victim is wrong... I just am apparently more objective than you and can realize that there is no such thing as "absolutely wrong." There is no "wrong." There's just stuff I happen to find wrong.

They're wrong, just like you're wrong.

My argument might be flawed and the conclusions incorrect, but that "wrong" is completely different from the moral "wrong" which is the subject at hand. Kindly don't mix the two, unless it is actually your intention to confuse the matter by associating me with a Saudi court and then using appeal to emotion to win your debate. ;)

Illegal is not the same as objectively wrong. For example, you're behavior in this thread is against site rules.

I think I'll wait for a moderator to classify what is or isn't against site rules, thx.

It has no bearing on the argument - unless of course your intent is to make an ad hominem.

Their is something wrong with pretending like legal, means good. Because if that were true, laws would never change and we'd have to listen to the nonsensical defense of this behavior for eternity. As it is, it will likely pass away like most of these types of laws are doing.

I never said "legal means good." You gonna bash strawmen all day or what?

Meanwhile, what do you think the basis is for creating laws? The idea that some things are just plain wrong. By supporting the laws, you're supporting that idea.

Since when does law imply absolute morality? Since... lemme check... oh yeah. NEVER.

Laws are written by a culture, applied to a state. There is no absolutism involved. And I don't necesarily support any law whatsoever.

Nope. According to me, DCD isn't correct. Because generalizing is just that. You can try and make other claims, but your attempts to equate us fails on your inability to recognize the difference between individuals and broadly painting all members of a group for the behavior of some.

I recognize that you are different individuals while recognizing that you are arguing for the same, flawed, ethnocentric system of judgement.

Cultures are not people. Individuals make up cultures and they are not part of some hive mind. Unless, I've somehow forgotten that, I can't possibly agree with DCD.

If some things - like a culture for example - are "just plain wrong," then some things are "just plain right." Maybe it's just me, but rightness implies superiority to wrongness. I think you agree with DCD and are just too emotionally-minded to realize it.

Blah blah blah. You fucking nazi, you're just too much of a PC coward to admit all the time. That's why you add shit like "act LIKE savages" as cowardly qualifiers. You're a chickenshit.

Yeah. Trolls love negative attention.
So, then based on your first statement and your secondary statement and the backlash on the forum, it is safe to say that you, GT, are indeed a troll.

If you had a problem with the way that DCD expressed himself, flaming and name calling will get you nothing more than the wrath of the mods. The right thing would have been to use tact, diplomacy and a little thread over in moderation expressing your discontent with DCD's comments and leave it to the mod's judgement.

You should hope the mods are in a good mood today because that is a rather nasty bit of wording you've got there and it could land you into a steaming pile of manure.

Two wrongs never make a right.

So, then based on your first statement and your secondary statement and the backlash on the forum, it is safe to say that you, GT, are indeed a troll.

No. I'm just honest (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12398995&postcount=31).

Funny how honesty is a virtue when DCD is being honest and you agree with his opinion, and it becomes "trolling" when I am honest and you don't. Oh well.

If you had a problem with the way that DCD expressed himself

I had a problem with what DCD said, not in "how he expressed himself."

flaming and name calling will get you nothing more than the wrath of the mods. The right thing would have been to use tact, diplomacy and a little thread over in moderation expressing your discontent with DCD's comments and leave it to the mod's judgement.

My problem with what DCD said was with the content, not in how it might be in violation of site's rules. And while tact might be more fruitful, I have to say that being honest makes me feel a lot better about myself.

What did y'all expect in countries/societies under Sharia?

Not all those that live by Sharia are this bad. Some people take it to the extreme.

Saudi culture is inferior. Sure, they've got some level of civilization, but they act like savages when they punish women who've been raped in order to appease their invisible man in the sky.

Oh, and you smell like poo.

I agree with the part of them being savages. I mean, anyone that treats a woman like that is a savage, no matter if they are Saudi, American, or whatever.

Blah blah blah. You fucking nazi, you're just too much of a PC coward to admit all the time. That's why you add shit like "act LIKE savages" as cowardly qualifiers. You're a chickenshit.



Yeah. Trolls love negative attention.



Saudi Arabia is a nation of laws. There is no room for those who break the law!
And you are a hypocrit. I'm sure if there was a thread about how female circumcision is being practised in such and such country, and it was good, and this and that, you'd be up in arms about how that country had no human rights.


Flame much?



And precisely what law did she break? I see you have ZERO regards for human rights..

Like I said, he is a hypocrite.

^This.

But what pisses me off more is that we cooporate with these barbarians for our cheap oil prices. It pisses me off to see our leaders fly over there to have gay arabian sex and god knows what, just to save a few bucks.:( :mad:

This culture is a disgrace, and we should have nothing to do with it. Instead, we are "allies".:(

Yeah....I love how we have a president which more or less dry humps the Royal Family, everytime they meet.


I don't hold any higher regard for "cultural" supremacy than racial. It's the same thing, really.

"I'm not a racist, I have black friends!"

"I'm not a racist, I just hate black culture!"

Just add "culture" and it's OK to say anything. Jews aren't subhumans... but their CULTURE is! Wink wink.



I think that was clear from the article?



Well you know. They're savages, and they're inferior. So if they're inferior savages, why should I have regard for their human rights?

I think you are missing the point. This isn't about "oh lets be nice to every culture and hold their hands, and be happy!" This world is cruel, and unfortunately, there are cultures that have either been barbaric for a while, or have slipped down that path. The culture of Saudi Arabia, for the most part, has no respect at all for women. This is not a race thing. Let me show you what I mean. The Saudis are arab right? Well if this was racist, then it'd be anti arab sentiment, however its now. If it were, it'd have included feelings against the cultures of places like Kuwait, or Jordan, or some other arabic nation. But, its only attacking the Saudi. Using your logic, one could be considered against whites, or rather any race alive, if they had anti-american sentiments.

So in closing, I think its good that you are looking out to defend to people of different races. However, you have become so open minded that your brain has fallen out, and you have seemed to lose your common sense. And I don't say that as a flame, but as a word of advice to you :)

The problem is that it's not inherent to the culture. There are many within the culture who don't believe that. The US has never had a female President. Does that mean American culture says women are inferior leaders or just that most people aren't motivated enough to change that view? I think the answer's obvious if you're paying attention.

Well, I'd argue with the point that I think Americans still secretly believe, on a good scale, that women are not equals. After all, women still do make like 74 cents to the dollar men make, in the same positions, even after laws have prohibited that.

Funny how honesty is a virtue when DCD is being honest and you agree with his opinion, and it becomes "trolling" when I am honest and you don't. Oh well.

I don't think they were calling you a troll due to your opinion. I think it was for this:

Blah blah blah. You fucking nazi, you're just too much of a PC coward to admit all the time. That's why you add shit like "act LIKE savages" as cowardly qualifiers. You're a chickenshit.

Aren't out allies wonderful. Clearly morally superior to our evil enemies.:rolleyes:

Until I see a source besides Fox News, I remain skeptical.

You can Google it. It's not just Fox News.

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=348792007

And you are a hypocrit. I'm sure if there was a thread about how female circumcision is being practised in such and such country, and it was good, and this and that, you'd be up in arms about how that country had no human rights.

No I wouldn't. There have in fact been plenty of threads on that subject and I've never been up in arms about some country or human rights.

I'm not a hypocrite.

I think you are missing the point. This isn't about "oh lets be nice to every culture and hold their hands, and be happy!" This world is cruel, and unfortunately, there are cultures that have either been barbaric for a while, or have slipped down that path. The culture of Saudi Arabia, for the most part, has no respect at all for women. This is not a race thing.

Yeah and the "culture" of black people promotes rape. Therefore, black people are savages, inferior, and it's not at all racist for me to hate them - after all it's their CULTURE of rape that I hate, not their skin color!

Gosh, why isn't this working. Why won't this line of reasoning ever work.

And you're right, this isn't about "oh lets be nice to every culture and hold their hands." This isn't about that, because that's a strawman you've just constructed.

However, you have become so open minded that your brain has fallen out, and you have seemed to lose your common sense. And I don't say that as a flame, but as a word of advice to you :)

Oh of course. When I call DCD a fucking nazi, it's trolling and flame, but when you say I'm stupid, it's "advice." Well, thanks for the advice, but I think I'll listen to my own voice of reason since it seems to be scoring more points on the truth-o-meter today.

Wow, defensive much. It's like arguing with a Jewish mother.

I didn't say you were a "bad person."

I happen to agree that blaming the victim is wrong... I just am apparently more objective than you and can realize that there is no such thing as "absolutely wrong." There is no "wrong." There's just stuff I happen to find wrong.

Amusing. Weren't you just attacking DCD for being racist and a Nazi. Then you make racist comments. Nice.

Meanwhile, you "happen to agree", yet you said supported the decision. You're full of crap.




My argument might be flawed and the conclusions incorrect, but that "wrong" is completely different from the moral "wrong" which is the subject at hand. Kindly don't mix the two, unless it is actually your intention to confuse the matter by associating me with a Saudi court and then using appeal to emotion to win your debate. ;)

Nope. My intention is point out that it is appropriate to stand up and call some things wrong. Like beating a woman for being a victim of rape. So far, all you've done is complain that I call you out on your BS. There is no debate.

I think it's funny that I make arguments and I'm appealing to emotion while you call people Nazis. The irony isn't lost on me.



I think I'll wait for a moderator to classify what is or isn't against site rules, thx.

Yes, and I've presented it to them to let them do exactly that.


It has no bearing on the argument - unless of course your intent is to make an ad hominem.

Um, no, I was simply using it as an example. That's why I led in with "for example". See how that works. Meanwhile, I think it's funny that you mention the spectre of "ad hominem" while you spent the majority of your posts in this thread flaming people. Amusing.



I never said "legal means good." You gonna bash strawmen all day or what?

You didn't? "Saudi Arabia is a nation of laws. There is no room for those who break the law!" Were you actually just trolling when you wrote this and other statements defending this law simply because it's law?




Since when does law imply absolute morality? Since... lemme check... oh yeah. NEVER.

Hey, you brought it up and have been beating that drum all thread. You said since it's legal it's okay. Or were you just trolling?




Laws are written by a culture, applied to a state. There is no absolutism involved. And I don't necesarily support any law whatsoever.

You supported this law. Again, were you just trolling?




I recognize that you are different individuals while recognizing that you are arguing for the same, flawed, ethnocentric system of judgement.

I am? What ethnicity am I arguing for, pray tell? What ethnicity is it that has unique domination on equality of rights and not blaming the victim? I'm interested. Come on. Stop just saying random things, and you know, make an explicit argument.



If some things - like a culture for example - are "just plain wrong," then some things are "just plain right." Maybe it's just me, but rightness implies superiority to wrongness. I think you agree with DCD and are just too emotionally-minded to realize it.

I likely do agree with DCD on some things. Not on applying the behavior of individuals to entire cultures. You do. And that's fine. I don't.

How is condemning a particular behavior is equivalent to condemning a culture? Behavior is individual and culture is general. You don't see the difference?

You do realize that you've brought up "ad hominem" and "strawman" while your entire argument is taking my argument about individuals and extending it to groups, something I openly disagree with, in order to argue against it (that's the basis of a strawman, my friend) and suggesting that my argument is wrong because I'm "emotioinally-minded" is well, you know, an "ad hominem". Kind of like calling someone a Nazi and various other random insults.

Now, let's examine the evidence. I make reasoned arguments. You're calling people names and personally attacking people. Hmmmm... which of us is emotional? I think the answer is blatantly obvious.

Now, how about you explain how individual behavior is equal to culture? I'm interested in how you think you're going to equate these things without defending DCD's very argument. In my mind, your behavior or even the behavior of a large group of people who share your culture cannot represent an entire culture. But you say condemning individual actions is condemning a culture, so let's hear your defense for extending the actions of individuals to an entire culture (amusingly, exactly what DCD argues, by the way).

No. I'm just honest (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12398995&postcount=31).

Funny how honesty is a virtue when DCD is being honest and you agree with his opinion, and it becomes "trolling" when I am honest and you don't. Oh well.

I had a problem with what DCD said, not in "how he expressed himself."

My problem with what DCD said was with the content, not in how it might be in violation of site's rules. And while tact might be more fruitful, I have to say that being honest makes me feel a lot better about myself.
Funny how you claim you're honest and yet DCD isn't honest.

I don't agree with his opinion at all on this, but I am of the contention that you did slip to a new low with that below-the-belt hit; how uncouth.

I would have said he was trolling, but it's just borderline stupidity when I see it beside your post. Name calling is definitely trolling.

Saying that someone is "acting like a savage" is not racism because it's how the person perceives the other to be acting (yes, I am aware that he was referring to the Saudis, but, I read between the lines, taking him to mean not all). He could have expressed his opinion in a different way, but, so could have you.

You could have still been brutally honest without resorting to childish name calling and swearing. The swearing really did detract from your post. It did nothing to reinforce your position.

Funny how you claim you're honest and yet DCD isn't honest.

I don't see how that's funny. Yeah, I'm honest. DCD is honest only insofar as he can get away with. I never said he was an outright liar.

I would have said he was trolling, but it's just borderline stupidity when I see it beside your post. Name calling is definitely trolling.


No, name calling is name calling. Perhaps flaming if you wanna get technical and depending on the interpretation.
If you wanna have a big discussion about it I think this is the time I say there's a thread on moderation for it.

Saying that someone is "acting like a savage" is not racism

He said they WERE savages. "What do you expect from savages?" IIRC.

And you're right, it may or may not be racism. But you know what, supremacist bigotry doesn't have to be racially oriented in order to be disgusting, offensive and irrational.

You could have still been brutally honest without resorting to childish name calling and swearing. The swearing really did detract from your post. It did nothing to reinforce your position.

When I was calling DCD what I was, I wasn't making a "position" or an argument. If I was it would surely be an ad hominem. No, it would not have been possible for me to be brutally honest without saying EXACTLY what I did say.

The problem is that it's not inherent to the culture. There are many within the culture who don't believe that. The US has never had a female President. Does that mean American culture says women are inferior leaders or just that most people aren't motivated enough to change that view? I think the answer's obvious if you're paying attention.

There's a world of difference between not having a female leader and violently beating rape victims.

Not to say our culture is perfect, far from it, it's just superior to theirs.

No, it's pretty damned irrelevant.

Well, here we shall have to disagree.

And that helps you sleep at night? You support a system which has executed innocent people for the crime of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or of the wrong color skin, or whatever. You think your personal disagreement with those "flaws" makes up for the fact that you not only morally support the system, but hold it up as "superior" to others while funding it? Your personal life, your money, are going to this system. You are not only morally complicit but practically so - can the same be said for your participation in Saudi Arabian system - no.

Actually, as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, I think you'll find that I neither morally support that system (As I never once mentioned morality), and nor do my tax pounds fund said system. As such, I am not morally complicit; indeed, I am proud that the United Kingdom has no death penalty except for absurd state matters that have not been used for at least fifty years. I hold the US system as 'superior' only because it has less flaws than the Saudi system; for no other reason than that

Perhaps then, that is why you dismiss US "flaws" but can afford the uber-righteous, high and mighty attitude towards foreign "savages." You aren't invested in or a member of the latter, no need to tiptoe.

It is hardly a 'high and mighty attitude' on my part, merely realistic thinking; the US system has many flaws, but seemingly fewer than the Saudi system, although I will willingly admit that the two are close in terms of flaws.

No I wouldn't. There have in fact been plenty of threads on that subject and I've never been up in arms about some country or human rights.

I'm not a hypocrite.

:rolleyes:

Yeah and the "culture" of black people promotes rape. Therefore, black people are savages, inferior, and it's not at all racist for me to hate them - after all it's their CULTURE of rape that I hate, not their skin color!

Gosh, why isn't this working. Why won't this line of reasoning ever work.

And you're right, this isn't about "oh lets be nice to every culture and hold their hands." This isn't about that, because that's a strawman you've just constructed.

Where are you pulling this from? Your arse? When has the black culture ever promoted rape? Now, look conversly at the saudis, look at all their anti woman laws they have, this rape thing, no driving, etc. The majority of the people there back those laws, if they didn't, they'd have had a revolution to overthrow the leaders to change the laws.



Oh of course. When I call DCD a fucking nazi, it's trolling and flame, but when you say I'm stupid, it's "advice." Well, thanks for the advice, but I think I'll listen to my own voice of reason since it seems to be scoring more points on the truth-o-meter today.
Well, one I didn't say with such malice. And two I never called you stupid, I was implying that you need to get your senses back about you. But since you are so high and mighty, and know everything, I am obviously flaming you.

There's a world of difference between not having a female leader and violently beating rape victims.

Not to say our culture is perfect, far from it, it's just superior to theirs.

But it isn't. There are aspects that should be lauded and aspects that should be condemned in both, but in order to say our culture is superior, you'd have to do several things, seperate out groups that are homogenous, which would be difficult to say the least, and seperate those groups from the influence of the government. I don't think you can do that or even really attempt to do that.

I agree with everyone that is ripping Greater Trostia a new asshole.

Ah. So US and Canadian culture was inferior up until about two decades ago. Clear. Thanks.

And imagine how "inferior" US culture was when black people couldn't vote... That's more than just bad rape laws!





...no I don't know what it was inferior to, but it was obviously bloody inferior!

*Waits for someone to post "any culture that accepts the death penalty is inferior"*

*Wonders why people are so concerned with their supposedly superior culture - knows the answer but secretly wants to be wrong*

Not all those that live by Sharia are this bad. Some people take it to the extreme.

All I said was that this is a logical outcome of the Sharia law.

Why do you feel compelled to make it seem that I think all muslim societies are bad and then make an 'enlightened' comment in correcting me of this thought ?

All I said was that this is a logical outcome of the Sharia law.

Why do you feel compelled to make it seem that I think all muslim societies are bad and then make an 'enlightened' comment in correcting me of this thought ?

Because anyone on NS General who criticizes Islam in any way is a right-wing fascist neocon bigot...

Because anyone on NS General who criticizes Islam in any way is a right-wing fascist neocon bigot...

But the thing is...I was not even criticizing Islam. I was criticizing Sharia. I try to avoid the pitfall of "OMGheisislamophobic/bigot/racist" by being specific and it pisses me off when people still misinterpret my opinion.

But the thing is...I was not even criticizing Islam. I was criticizing Sharia. I try to avoid the pitfall of "OMGheisislamophobic/bigot/racist" by being specific and it pisses me off when people still misinterpret my opinion.

Around here, criticizing Sharia is criticizing Islam. Just ask Gauthier.

Criticize even the smallest part of it, and you'll get labeled.

Around here, criticizing Sharia is criticizing Islam. Just ask Gauthier.

Criticize even the smallest part of it, and you'll get labeled.

Oh, come on, stop playing the victim. You don't criticize even the smallest part of it. You broadly paint an entire group of people using irrational arguments of superiority. Your "complaints' are simply an attempt to personally discredit anyone who disagrees with you in the exact same way you are accusing others of doing to you. It's hypocritical and more than a little obtuse.

And why would this story get attention? Because it's more material for the "|\/|0zl3|\/|z r 3b1l" crowd on NSG. Saudi Arabia's a fucking oppresive country. So what? China is too and you don't see news flashes on Chinese human rights abuses here on the hour every hour. Haven't heard any threads on Sudan unless it ties into UN Bashing or Freedom Fries either. It's one big DUH, NO SHIT.

If Saudi Arabia followed almost any other religion besides Islam and doing the same crap, would this thread even be on in the first place? I'd say "Fuck no."

Islamaphobia has become the new American Idol.

Oh, come on, stop playing the victim. You don't criticize even the smallest part of it. You broadly paint an entire group of people using irrational arguments of superiority. Your "complaints' are simply an attempt to personally discredit anyone who disagrees with you in the exact same way you are accusing others of doing to you. It's hypocritical and more than a little obtuse.

I've criticized just Sharia before, and been called a racist bigot. Stop while you're ahead.

Blah blah blah. You fucking nazi, you're just too much of a PC coward to admit all the time. That's why you add shit like "act LIKE savages" as cowardly qualifiers. You're a chickenshit.



Yeah. Trolls love negative attention.



Saudi Arabia is a nation of laws. There is no room for those who break the law!

You seem to misunderstand something, the saudis are flogging a woman because she got raped, because of their sand-tribe garbage of a society.

Savagery is savagery, you are defending despicable godawful scum people agaisnt people who want to correct injustice and right wrongs.

I dont think you have any room to be calling anyone a nazi.

All I said was that this is a logical outcome of the Sharia law.

Why do you feel compelled to make it seem that I think all muslim societies are bad and then make an 'enlightened' comment in correcting me of this thought ?

I wasn't doing that? Plus you said something along the lines of "Thats what you get under sharia law", which I guess I wrongly assumed as you saying something else. Sorry.

I've criticized just Sharia before, and been called a racist bigot. Stop while you're ahead.

But you don't only criticize just Sharia, so the point holds. Need I quote you. You're lying and you're trying to claim that you're constantly attacked as a person rather than people attacking your beliefs. Attacking you as a bigot is generally not the point that people are making. Your beliefs are the focus and YOU are, right now, regularly attacking the people of NSG because you can't support your claims with arguments.

So far, the only thing you've added is bitching about how you're treated oh so unfairly. It's crap. You know it's crap. We know it's crap. So add to the discussion and move on, because no one is buying your "I'm the victim" nonsense.

And why would this story get attention? Because it's more material for the "|\/|0zl3|\/|z r 3b1l" crowd on NSG. Saudi Arabia's a fucking oppresive country. So what? China is too and you don't see news flashes on Chinese human rights abuses here on the hour every hour. Haven't heard any threads on Sudan unless it ties into UN Bashing or Freedom Fries either. It's one big DUH, NO SHIT.

If Saudi Arabia followed almost any other religion besides Islam and doing the same crap, would this thread even be on in the first place? I'd say "Fuck no."

Islamaphobia has become the new American Idol.

I think the main problem is this:

http://dohiyimir.typepad.com/bush-abdulah.jpg

The US holds the gov't of a brutal regime, capable of allowing such devious acts to occur, in high esteem...


Well, actually, now that I think about it, the US does that alot. So, I guess I see your point.

I wasn't doing that? Plus you said something along the lines of "Thats what you get under sharia law", which I guess I wrongly assumed as you saying something else. Sorry.

Yes, I said something along the lines of ""Thats what you get under sharia law". That means exactly what that means and I stand by that. That is not a blanket criticism of islam or muslim societies, unless you are arguing that islam = sharia, in which case, it is you who is anti-islam. ;)

China is too and you don't see news flashes on Chinese human rights abuses here on the hour every hour.

Well, to be fair, China is really good at hiding its human rights abuses. It tries very hard not to let them get out, but when it does get out, it really does get a lot of attention on these boards- Like where they were using the organs of the homeless and imprisoned and selling them on the Int market. That made huge news.

Saudi is one weird place. I am not surprised that something like this happened.

Well, to be fair, China is really good at hiding its human rights abuses. It tries very hard not to let them get out, but when it does get out, it really does get a lot of attention on these boards- Like where they were using the organs of the homeless and imprisoned and selling them on the Int market. That made huge news.

There are many places which have shown to be adept at covering their own asses and denying any knowledge of wrongdoing. And China is just one of many.

Saudi is one weird place. I am not surprised that something like this happened.

It's not as unusual as many would like to believe. I work with people who proudly wish that we would behead people for using drugs, apparently to protect them from becoming addicted.

It's not as unusual as many would like to believe. I work with people who proudly wish that we would behead people for using drugs, apparently to protect them from becoming addicted.

That actually makes sense if you believe in some twisted form of karma and reincarnation. Are you sure you're not confusing one kind of brown person with another?

That actually makes sense if you believe in some twisted form of karma and reincarnation. Are you sure you're not confusing one kind of brown person with another?

At the time I was talking to Texans. I guess they were a little brown, but mostly I think that was just because they get a lot of sun. They were expressing their support of the SA legal system, particularly the most barbaric parts of it.

Reads....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256980,00.html

Stops reading.



This is most likely completely fabricated or exaggerated to the point of irrelevance.

This is most likely completely fabricated or exaggerated to the point of irrelevance.

Fabricated by the Zionists no doubt:rolleyes:

Why would she meet him if she knew it was against the law?

If this happened, it wouldn't surprise me, the Saudi ruling family are bastards.

This is most likely completely fabricated or exaggerated to the point of irrelevance.

and if you the rest of the thread, you'll that someone put up another link to it from a source outside of Faux.

Fox is not a legit source.

This is most likely completely fabricated or exaggerated to the point of irrelevance.

In fairness, I looked up the "Saudi Gazette" mentioned in the article, and it seems to be genuine, and does carry the article, with far more detail than is given by Faux. The detail does not make it look any better for the Saudi court, I might add. Saudi is not a nice place. I heard that long before the Amerikaners went on their current round of Islamo-loathing with its attendant hype, and it has appeared to be true over the years.

At the time I was talking to Texans. I guess they were a little brown, but mostly I think that was just because they get a lot of sun. They were expressing their support of the SA legal system, particularly the most barbaric parts of it.

Ah. My bad. I take it they were the crazy-fundie type of Texan?

Keep on buying that oil guys...every barrel's another citizen repressed and impoverished for an additional day.

Zionists? Where?

In my pants!
:eek:

Fabricated by the Zionists no doubt:rolleyes:

And IDF comes crashing down on the thread like a bull in a fine china shop. Seriously, no one said anything about Zionists until you came in.

Why would she meet him if she knew it was against the law?

She was blackmailed into meeting him. (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=252865)

In an interview with the Saudi Gazette, the 19-year-old said she was blackmailed a year ago into meeting a man who threatened to tell her family they were having a relationship outside wedlock, which is illegal in the ultra-conservative desert kingdom.

She is the victim here, in every way shape and form. Except, of course, that she refuses to act like one and is apparently planning on fighting this judgement.

"I was shocked at the verdict. I couldn't believe my ears," said the woman, who has appealed against her sentence.

And IDF comes crashing down on the thread like a bull in a fine china shop. Seriously, no one said anything about Zionists until you came in.

Zionists? Where?

Ah. So US and Canadian culture was inferior up until about two decades ago. Clear. Thanks.

Yes. That is correct.

Zionists? Where?

:eek:

Why would she meet him if she knew it was against the law?

Did you even read the story? Blackmail, Einstein. Your powers of observation stun me.

Despite having a reactionary religious culture, I respect the welfare state model in Saudi.

In my pants!
:eek:

That's the best place for Zionists to be. *content*

Why would she meet him if she knew it was against the law?

She must be promiscuous and therefore deserves the punishment. She probably seduced the man too and thus brought dishonor to the poor man. She should have been stoned instead.

Fucking disgusting.

A friend of mine went over there a few years back and was hit with a rock because her eyebrows were showing. This isn't even a backwards culture, it's a destructive culture.

Despite having a reactionary religious culture, I respect the welfare state model in Saudi.

Why is it you seem like the type of person who would fall head over heals in love with the Saudi government?

Gee I wonder why?:D

Winston Churchill, is that you?

Wait. It isn't. Quit trying to act like him - at least he had power and influence and importance, while you are more like a dirty fart made under cover of a sudden and loud sound.
Having power and influence doesn't make you less of a prick, contrary to common belief.

Were it not for the second World War, Churchill probably would have been seen in the same way as Thatcher (hate from most Brits, love from a vocal minority of twerps).

Why is it you seem like the type of person who would fall head over heals in love with the Saudi government?

Gee I wonder why?:D

Why would I do that? I was just saying that I respect state welfare models, plus I am an atheist.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256980,00.html

Damn Saudis punishing a woman who was raped.

That's just fucked up.

*snip*

Ugh.:rolleyes:

She was blackmailed into meeting him. (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=252865)



She is the victim here, in every way shape and form. Except, of course, that she refuses to act like one and is apparently planning on fighting this judgement.

See thats what I have a problem with in the case. She said she was "blackmailed" however she was not forced to go. If its not true that they had a relationship outside of marriage, the truth would have came out, the man would have been punished for lying about it and nothing would happen to her. It is was true that she did have a relationship outside of marriage, then sorry to say its her own fault of what trouble she gets into. Allah has said such relationships are Haraam. If she would have followed that, none of this would have happened. Either way she didnt have to meet him.

You seem to misunderstand something, the saudis are flogging a woman because she got raped, because of their sand-tribe garbage of a society.

Savagery is savagery, you are defending despicable godawful scum people agaisnt people who want to correct injustice and right wrongs.

I dont think you have any room to be calling anyone a nazi.

You seem to misunderstand something as well. You seem to think I am defending ethically the act of flogging a woman. What I am doing is criticizing people who blurt out epithets like "sand-tribe garbage" and "savages" and "inferior." People like you cause terrorism because you inspire absolutely no sympathy.

I had ancestors quite recently in my family tree get executed because they were "inferior" and because others didn't like their "culture." Just because it's Muslims and Arabs now instead of Jews and Ashkenazi doesn't make it any more appropriate. Yeah, flogging a woman sucks - I don't agree with it - but I'm not going to use it as an excuse to hate an entire people as you and others seem to do.

Having power and influence doesn't make you less of a prick, contrary to common belief.

That's true. But it does mean your opinion carries more weight simply because it will be heard by, and influence, more people.

If there's any justice, the king'll order that they apply 90 lashes to the judge, not the victim.

Okay wait. Reading the fox article, some things seem confused in this thread.

It appears she WAS seeing this guy out of wedlock, and may have faced this punishment regardless of the rape.

The two of them, her alleged lover, and herself, were abducted, and she was raped.

So it appears she is NOT being punished for being raped, but rather for having a lover.

Still sick, but not quite the same thing.

See thats what I have a problem with in the case. She said she was "blackmailed" however she was not forced to go. If its not true that they had a relationship outside of marriage, the truth would have came out, the man would have been punished for lying about it and nothing would happen to her. It is was true that she did have a relationship outside of marriage, then sorry to say its her own fault of what trouble she gets into. Allah has said such relationships are Haraam. If she would have followed that, none of this would have happened. Either way she didnt have to meet him.

How the fuck can you even defend this?

From another source (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378314145&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull):
“The four, all married, were sentenced respectively to five years and 1,000 lashes, four years and 800 lashes, four years and 350 lashes, and one year and 80 lashes. “
By the way, why is no one as outraged at the fact that the man she was with was also sentenced to the same?
“A male friend of the rape victim was also sentenced to 90 lashes for being alone with her in the car.”

My issue is this:

1) The case has been mischaracterised as a situation where a woman is being punished for being raped. She was not. She was punished for being in the car with her male friend, who did not take part in the rape. The punishment she faces is equal to the punishment the man faces. We might not think either of them should be punished, but there is no gender imbalance here.

2)The rapists have been sentenced...are the sentences enough? Well coming from Canada, where some rapists get out in about the same amount of time, I don't think I can talk. Ditto for you, citizens of the US.

As well, note the following:"Her husband and family said that they would appeal to the court Saturday for harsher penalties for a crime which has shocked public opinion in Saudi Arabia and been the subject of months of debate. "

Months of debate...shocked public opinion...clearly this is not something that has gone down readily within the Saudi culture itself.

I dub this thread a big, steaming pile of total shit. As is the norm when talking about Muslims lately.

Why is it you seem like the type of person who would fall head over heals in love with the Saudi government?

Gee I wonder why?:D
Because he bears a striking resemblance to George Bush?
Ugh.:rolleyes:
Hehe... I'm happy those little green arrows have been implemented. Due to the Time Warp I didn't understand which post you had snipped before following them :p
Okay wait. Reading the fox article, some things seem confused in this thread.

It appears she WAS seeing this guy out of wedlock, and may have faced this punishment regardless of the rape.

The two of them, her alleged lover, and herself, were abducted, and she was raped.

So it appears she is NOT being punished for being raped, but rather for having a lover.

Still sick, but not quite the same thing.
EDIT:

You're right.

See thats what I have a problem with in the case. She said she was "blackmailed" however she was not forced to go. If its not true that they had a relationship outside of marriage, the truth would have came out, the man would have been punished for lying about it and nothing would happen to her. It is was true that she did have a relationship outside of marriage, then sorry to say its her own fault of what trouble she gets into. Allah has said such relationships are Haraam. If she would have followed that, none of this would have happened. Either way she didnt have to meet him.

You can't be serious. If I get mugged is it my fault for walking in a bad neighborhood. Way to blame the victim. You do the ideas of compassion and peace a great service. A real credit. Next you'll tell us how it's her fault the men raped her because she must have made them feel funny in the pants.

Okay wait. Reading the fox article, some things seem confused in this thread.

It appears she WAS seeing this guy out of wedlock, and may have faced this punishment regardless of the rape.

The two of them, her alleged lover, and herself, were abducted, and she was raped.

So it appears she is NOT being punished for being raped, but rather for having a lover.

Still sick, but not quite the same thing.

Actually, the article is not clear if she had a relationship with the blackmailer or not. It does not say that she did. It calls him her friend in another article, but nothing actually suggests she was committing adultery. Meanwhile, she was sentenced for being alone with the man, not for having a lover. It's not really a subtle difference. And by all appearances, she did not appear to have wanted to be alone with him so much as she was coerced.

From another source (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378314145&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull):
“The four, all married, were sentenced respectively to five years and 1,000 lashes, four years and 800 lashes, four years and 350 lashes, and one year and 80 lashes. “
By the way, why is no one as outraged at the fact that the man she was with was also sentenced to the same?
“A male friend of the rape victim was also sentenced to 90 lashes for being alone with her in the car.”

My issue is this:

1) The case has been mischaracterised as a situation where a woman is being punished for being raped. She was not. She was punished for being in the car with her male friend, who did not take part in the rape. The punishment she faces is equal to the punishment the man faces. We might not think either of them should be punished, but there is no gender imbalance here.

2)The rapists have been sentenced...are the sentences enough? Well coming from Canada, where some rapists get out in about the same amount of time, I don't think I can talk. Ditto for you, citizens of the US.

As well, note the following:"Her husband and family said that they would appeal to the court Saturday for harsher penalties for a crime which has shocked public opinion in Saudi Arabia and been the subject of months of debate. "

Months of debate...shocked public opinion...clearly this is not something that has gone down readily within the Saudi culture itself.
I see I've misread an article. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. :)

The verdict still isn't something I agree with, but this is better than if the alternatives are either convict the rapist or convict the victim...


I dub this thread a big, steaming pile of total shit. As is the norm when talking about Muslims lately.
So what else is new?

I don't hold any higher regard for "cultural" supremacy than racial. It's the same thing, really.

"I'm not a racist, I have black friends!"

"I'm not a racist, I just hate black culture!"

Just add "culture" and it's OK to say anything. Jews aren't subhumans... but their CULTURE is! Wink wink.



I think that was clear from the article?



Well you know. They're savages, and they're inferior. So if they're inferior savages, why should I have regard for their human rights?

and you are calling others nazis

and you are calling others nazis

Yeah, but the bolded part of my post was one using their rhetoric, not my own. I do support human rights, yes - but what does that mean with regards to this particular case in Saudi Arabia? Does it mean we have to get angry and call them "savages?" Or perhaps it's a call for military action - we need to invade, conquer, destroy? What exactly does one do to "support human rights" in this case?

Don't get me wrong, I don't have any sympathy for the sand tribe trash savages who are going to whip this poor woman. I have a lot of sympathy for that poor woman and others like her - muslims and arabs who are victims of the sand tribe trash culture of the worst parts of the middle east.

The problem isnt muslims and isnt arabs, as a group, because they aren't inferior as people. The problem is the sand trash culture of nomad savagery.

You and I have a duty to despise the culture that flogs women for being raped, just as we have a duty to despise the nazis and every other wrong.

Saudi Arabia has no inherant right to run itself like it does. If all the degenerate saudi princes, degenerate wahhabi clerics, degenerate rapist-floggers, &al, were destroyed, the world would benefit by their passing.

This is no different from calling nazism despicable, savage, and barbaric.

Governments have a duty to be just, and the rest of us have a duty to resist injustice.

Quoted for the fucking truth.

You seem to misunderstand something as well. You seem to think I am defending ethically the act of flogging a woman. What I am doing is criticizing people who blurt out epithets like "sand-tribe garbage" and "savages" and "inferior." People like you cause terrorism because you inspire absolutely no sympathy.

I had ancestors quite recently in my family tree get executed because they were "inferior" and because others didn't like their "culture." Just because it's Muslims and Arabs now instead of Jews and Ashkenazi doesn't make it any more appropriate. Yeah, flogging a woman sucks - I don't agree with it - but I'm not going to use it as an excuse to hate an entire people as you and others seem to do.

That's true. But it does mean your opinion carries more weight simply because it will be heard by, and influence, more people.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have any sympathy for the sand tribe trash savages who are going to whip this poor woman. I have a lot of sympathy for that poor woman and others like her - muslims and arabs who are victims of the sand tribe trash culture of the worst parts of the middle east.

The problem isnt muslims and isnt arabs, as a group, because they aren't inferior as people. The problem is the sand trash culture of nomad savagery.

You and I have a duty to despise the culture that flogs women for being raped, just as we have a duty to despise the nazis and every other wrong.

Saudi Arabia has no inherant right to run itself like it does. If all the degenerate saudi princes, degenerate wahhabi clerics, degenerate rapist-floggers, &al, were destroyed, the world would benefit by their passing.

This is no different from calling nazism despicable, savage, and barbaric.

Governments have a duty to be just, and the rest of us have a duty to resist injustice.

Well what do you expect from savages?

But savages act better...

And IDF comes crashing down on the thread like a bull in a fine china shop. Seriously, no one said anything about Zionists until you came in.

But we can't have a strawman jew-pity-party without someone, bringing up the strawman that it was "invented by zionists."

Saudi Arabia is a nation of laws. There is no room for those who break the law!

This coming from the same person who A) whines about trolls and B) talks about his anscestors being killed by bigots??

But Trotsie, the third reich was a nation of LAWS, there is no room for those who break the law!

But Trotsie, being a jew was against the law.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong, I don't have any sympathy for the sand tribe trash savages who are going to whip this poor woman. I have a lot of sympathy for that poor woman and others like her - muslims and arabs who are victims of the sand tribe trash culture of the worst parts of the middle east.

How interesting. You have sympathy for people, because of their way of life, their religion, their values... all of which you so sympathetically dismiss as "sand tribe trash culture."

But hey, who cares about consistency when you get to shit out "trash culture" again and again without repercussions. It's almost like a dead baby joke thread - sure it's spammy and crude and offensive, but it's FUN and that's what counts.

The problem is the sand trash culture of nomad savagery.

Oh, of course. Now "nomads" are to blame, despite this being very distinctly a case of civilized (city-dwelling) laws in an urban, sedentary agricultural culture.

"Nomad savagery" was used to excuse the genocide of ancestors on my OTHER side of the family, the native americans. As recently as the 1920s, people like my grandmother were beaten in the Federal boarding schools for the awful crime of speaking her native language. Why? Because, it was reasoned, any part of that "savage" culture was clearly "inferior" and thus wrong. People like you held the switches.

You and I have a duty to despise the culture

Nope. I don't have a duty to hate anyone. Period. You wanna hate? Fine... join terrorists in unthinking lifelong rage. I'll be here with the reasonable and sane folks.


Saudi Arabia has no inherant right to run itself like it does.

Self-rule, sovereignty, international laws. I don't know if those are "inherant," they certainly aren't recognized when US policy makes that inconvenient.

Speaking of which, do you support a US-lead invasion of Saudi Arabia? You know, kill people and take over their government - for their own good.


This is no different from calling nazism despicable, savage, and barbaric.


There is no "nazism" culture. You've now called the entire people "savage" and you've dismissed them as "nomad savages." You do so with such frequency that I honestly believe it gives you some kind of sexual pleasure.

Governments have a duty to be just, and the rest of us have a duty to resist injustice.

Hatred isn't duty.

But we can't have a strawman jew-pity-party without someone, bringing up the strawman that it was "invented by zionists."

How about we go one Middle East thread without the jew-pity party. Novel idea isn't it?

There is no excuse for this. I don't understand those on the Left not criticizing the Saudi regime for this terrible injustice (not everyone on the Left, just some). It seems you can only be against American Imperialism or Islamic Fundamentalism and not both. Criticizing an obvious human rights abuse doesn't mean your anti Muslim. I think the Left needs to stand up for human rights and denounce dictatorship and oppression. Nothing justifies the treatment of this poor girl. Human rights are Universal.

Political Compass:
Economic : -7.00
Social: -4.50

There is no excuse for this. I don't understand those on the Left not criticizing the Saudi regime for this terrible injustice (not everyone on the Left, just some). It seems you can only be against American Imperialism or Islamic Fundamentalism and not both.

Where did you get that from?

How interesting. You have sympathy for people, because of their way of life, their religion, their values... all of which you so sympathetically dismiss as "sand tribe trash culture."

That doe'snt follow at all from what I wrote...
I have sympathy for people because they are people, not 'because of their way of life, their religion &c.' A woman who is raped and then flogged for it deserves sympathy on those grounds, not "because of her way of life."

But hey, who cares about consistency when you get to shit out "trash culture" again and again without repercussions. It's almost like a dead baby joke thread - sure it's spammy and crude and offensive, but it's FUN and that's what counts.
Not fun per se, just accurate. The world needs less of this dark-ages "justice" and more enlightened rule. It is trash culture to flog a woman for being raped.

Oh, of course. Now "nomads" are to blame, despite this being very distinctly a case of civilized (city-dwelling) laws in an urban, sedentary agricultural culture.

Apparently you aren't familiar in the slightest with arabian history. The laws of sharia are the laws that governed the the savage sand tribes of arabia, they have not been updated and made just. Saudi arabia was populated by sand nomads, they have not striven to become just, therefore their 'traditional' culture is trash. The reformers there good people, the 'traditionalists' are scum.

"Nomad savagery" was used to excuse the genocide of ancestors on my OTHER side of the family, the native americans. As recently as the 1920s, people like my grandmother were beaten in the Federal boarding schools for the awful crime of speaking her native language. Why? Because, it was reasoned, any part of that "savage" culture was clearly "inferior" and thus wrong. People like you held the switches.

Are you sure it wasnt people like the saudis who held the switches? I'm talking about justice and injustice, and I think you are, for some reason, assuming that I would take the just position with regards to saudi arabia but the unjust position in regards to indians. Why?



Nope. I don't have a duty to hate anyone. Period. You wanna hate? Fine... join terrorists in unthinking lifelong rage. I'll be here with the reasonable and sane folks.
I didnt say "hate," I said "despise." Being despicable is normative, people should despise despicable things. You should be revolted, angry and affronted.



Self-rule, sovereignty, international laws. I don't know if those are "inherant," they certainly aren't recognized when US policy makes that inconvenient.
The only sense that can be made out of this is very troubling: no matter how unjust or wicked a government, 'self-rule' and 'sovereignty' protect it from outside interferance. Thank god the world didnt agree with you in 1940.

Speaking of which, do you support a US-lead invasion of Saudi Arabia? You know, kill people and take over their government - for their own good. I doubt the US is capable of competently invading Arabia or anywhere else.



There is no "nazism" culture. You've now called the entire people "savage" and you've dismissed them as "nomad savages." You do so with such frequency that I honestly believe it gives you some kind of sexual pleasure.

One does not follow from the other... There was indeed a "nazism" culture, for a time in germany. Hitler was elected and very popular, in case you weren't aware.

The second part doesn't follow from anything. I've clearly referred only to the savages as savages - the people who whip rape victims and condone it.

Your rambling about 'sexual pleasure' and the generally incoherant and unreasonable tone of everything you've posted in this thread makes me think you're either trolling, on drugs, or drunk.

You can't be serious. If I get mugged is it my fault for walking in a bad neighborhood. Way to blame the victim. You do the ideas of compassion and peace a great service. A real credit. Next you'll tell us how it's her fault the men raped her because she must have made them feel funny in the pants.

Your acting as if she is completely innocent, which she's not so lets quit pretending like she is. If she did have relations with this man outside of marriage as it appears she did, then she did something Allah swt has said clearly she shouldn't. If she had followed what Allah has said, absolutely none this would have happened. She made the choice to go astray, she must live with the consquences.That said, people need to stop trying to spin this to make it look like something its not.

That said, people need to stop trying to spin this to make it look like something its not.

A woman is getting prosecuted for being raped...

There is no need to spin this.

That doe'snt follow at all from what I wrote...
I have sympathy for people because they are people, not 'because of their way of life, their religion &c.' A woman who is raped and then flogged for it deserves sympathy on those grounds, not "because of her way of life."


... and that doesn't really follow from what I wrote either. I never said the woman doesn't deserve sympathy for it... I am however pointing out the value (basically zero) of your sympathy when you condemn her entire culture as "trash."


Not fun per se, just accurate.

Nope. "sand trash nomad" is not accurate in the least... it is equivalent to "honky redneck white trash" or "******."

The world needs less of this dark-ages "justice" and more enlightened rule. It is trash culture to flog a woman for being raped.

First you are talking about justice - then the culture. Using one to hate the other. Versatile, but irrational.

Apparently you aren't familiar in the slightest with arabian history. The laws of sharia are the laws that governed the the savage sand tribes of arabia, they have not been updated and made just. Saudi arabia was populated by sand nomads, they have not striven to become just, therefore their 'traditional' culture is trash.

Why don't you just say they're all camel jockey doon coon sand niggers while you're at it?

And I am familiar with history. I'm also aware that a "historical" culture of nomadicism in a nation doesn't mean everyoen there is a nomad.

I'm also aware that this system doesn't have anything to do with being "nomad" nor nomadicism directly correlating to "savagery." But then I seem to be living in the 21st century instead of the 1930s.

The reformers there good people, the 'traditionalists' are scum.

Nah. You've stated quite clearly that everyone who is part of that culture is scum - savage sand trash.

Are you sure it wasnt people like the saudis who held the switches?

Yep.

It was people like you with this attitude of cultural superiority. Culling the "inferiors."

I'm talking about justice and injustice, and I think you are, for some reason, assuming that I would take the just position with regards to saudi arabia but the unjust position in regards to indians. Why?

You seem to think there is something just about calling a people "trash." Sorry, the big words don't defend little opinions.

You would take an unjust position with regards to indians because hey - they're nomads - they're trash. They have a savage tree culture.


I didnt say "hate," I said "despise."

Clearly the same thing in your context. Really, you're grasping at straws here. Let's face it, you've asserted an entire people are "trash" and now trying vainly to defend and evade this assertion.

Being despicable is normative, people should despise despicable things. You should be revolted, angry and affronted.

I am indeed revolted, angry and affronted.

By you.


The only sense that can be made out of this is very troubling: no matter how unjust or wicked a government, 'self-rule' and 'sovereignty' protect it from outside interferance. Thank god the world didnt agree with you in 1940.

On the contrary. It was the British support of French self-rule that got them into the war, and thus "the world" as well.

I doubt the US is capable of competently invading Arabia or anywhere else.

That doesn't really answer the question. Would you support an invasion of Saudi Arabia to liberate them from their "trash culture?"

One does not follow from the other... There was indeed a "nazism" culture, for a time in germany. Hitler was elected and very popular, in case you weren't aware.

National Socialism was a political party. Not a culture.

The second part doesn't follow from anything. I've clearly referred only to the savages as savages - the people who whip rape victims and condone it.

Yeah and I might clearly refer only to the bank-controlling, moneygrubbing Jews as subhuman. Not the Jews overall.

Do you even understand how offensive your generalization is? It seems like you don't. You seem to think you can call someone "sand trash" based on their culture, but avoid insulting the entire culture and everyone part of it. Doesn't work like that.

Your rambling about 'sexual pleasure' and the generally incoherant and unreasonable tone of everything you've posted in this thread makes me think you're either trolling, on drugs, or drunk.

Ah yes - I must be unreasonable, because I don't think it's my "duty to despise" the "nomadic sand trash."

Nope. I am not trolling, nor am I inebriated. You're going to have to do better than that. Maybe you can type "sand trash" another couple dozen times.

A woman is getting prosecuted for being raped...

There is no need to spin this.

That sentence right there is spin. You make it seem as if some poor inocent girl got raped and is be punished for it and she did nothing wrong. Thats just simply untrue.

That sentence right there is spin. You make it seem as if some poor inocent girl got raped and is be punished for it and she did nothing wrong. Thats just simply untrue.

The character of the girl matters?

These are all very good points everyone is bringing up, but you're neglecting one important question.
Did anyone question the source of this 'news' article, considering 'fox news' is nothing but a ploy of an entertainment company where they pretend that they have the slightest clue about what journalism or any type of investigative journalism is truly about.
Everyone is being misdirected, just like in a fantastic international magic act.

Your acting as if she is completely innocent, which she's not so lets quit pretending like she is. If she did have relations with this man outside of marriage as it appears she did, then she did something Allah swt has said clearly she shouldn't. If she had followed what Allah has said, absolutely none this would have happened. She made the choice to go astray, she must live with the consquences.That said, people need to stop trying to spin this to make it look like something its not.

"It looks like she did." Weren't you just in another thread talking about how important it is to Islam that one is held to be innocent until proven guilty. For a man raping a women, four pious men must witness it. For a woman having an affair, "it looks like she did" is enough. Yep, I see where you're coming from.

Yep, justice, that is.

That sentence right there is spin. You make it seem as if some poor inocent girl got raped and is be punished for it and she did nothing wrong. Thats just simply untrue.

Yes, because anything she did could somehow warrant the rape. Her behavior is of no consequence to the FACT that she was raped by seven men some of whom got the benefit of the doubt when she didn't. Again, tell us all about your views about justice.

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Jalapeno
There is no excuse for this. I don't understand those on the Left not criticizing the Saudi regime for this terrible injustice (not everyone on the Left, just some). It seems you can only be against American Imperialism or Islamic Fundamentalism and not both.

Where did you get that from?"

It's everywhere, people on the Right always criticize Islamic fundamentalism which is a valid criticism but they ignore the sins of Israel and the United States. You'll never hear a conservative criticize imperialism. The Left universally condemns America's Sins but often overlooks those of others (at least the left in my country). I consider myself a moderate leftist but I'm against all human rights violations, no matter what ideology they are committed in the name of.

You can't be serious.

Oh, he is.

Next you'll tell us how it's her fault the men raped her because she must have made them feel funny in the pants.

He has told that already. In that Australian beard's "Woman meat cat eat" thread.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256980,00.html

Damn Saudis punishing a woman who was raped.

That's nothing new, unfortunately, Saudi Arabistan is a primitive country. Other Islamic countries, in general, also tend to be backwards when it comes to women's rights.

This is most likely completely fabricated or exaggerated to the point of irrelevance.

Oh brother. :rolleyes:

How the fuck can you even defend this?

He's an islamist. What do you expect? Islamists have no respect for Human Rights.

See thats what I have a problem with in the case. She said she was "blackmailed" however she was not forced to go. If its not true that they had a relationship outside of marriage, the truth would have came out, the man would have been punished for lying about it and nothing would happen to her. It is was true that she did have a relationship outside of marriage, then sorry to say its her own fault of what trouble she gets into. Allah has said such relationships are Haraam. If she would have followed that, none of this would have happened. Either way she didnt have to meet him.
So, because she chose to disobey some fictional entity's edicts, she deserves 90 lashings? Wow...

No I wouldn't. There have in fact been plenty of threads on that subject and I've never been up in arms about some country or human rights.

I'm not a hypocrite.



Yeah and the "culture" of black people promotes rape. Therefore, black people are savages, inferior, and it's not at all racist for me to hate them - after all it's their CULTURE of rape that I hate, not their skin color!

Gosh, why isn't this working. Why won't this line of reasoning ever work.

And you're right, this isn't about "oh lets be nice to every culture and hold their hands." This isn't about that, because that's a strawman you've just constructed.



Oh of course. When I call DCD a fucking nazi, it's trolling and flame, but when you say I'm stupid, it's "advice." Well, thanks for the advice, but I think I'll listen to my own voice of reason since it seems to be scoring more points on the truth-o-meter today.

I think it's funny that you can abuse some one of being a Nazi when they are against certain cultures when nazi'ism is a culture and you are using as an insult, therefore defining your own boundary on what constitutes and inferior culture... so by your logic you are also a Nazi.

And the reason your 'line of reasoning never works' is because you make absolutely no sense.
as i have shown being against the nazi culture doe'snt mean that i hate all white people (with or without blonde hair)

Although I must admit I am prejudges against any one who has a box mustache

I think it's funny that you can abuse some one of being a Nazi when they are against certain cultures when nazi'ism is a culture and you are using as an insult, therefore defining your own boundary on what constitutes and inferior culture... so by your logic you are also a Nazi.
Nazism isn't a culture it's a political affiliation.

Nazism isn't a culture it's a political affiliation.

Indeed but that political affiliation became the culture of Germany for a brief period of time.

Nazism isn't a culture it's a political affiliation.

They didnt really care for a second term in office tho, they were planning a complete transformation of Germany.

Indeed but that political affiliation became the culture of Germany for a brief period of time.
That, plus it is a cultural movement of sorts nowadays, amongst other things.

That, plus it is a cultural movement of sorts nowadays, amongst other things.

EDIT
that's what i was thinking of, i obviously didnt think Trostia was calling DCD was a politician from the late 1940's

Honestly, lets invade Saudi Arabia. Its one of the most barbaric regimes when it comes to civil rights and liberties. I dont give a shit about a "culture" that beleives in Rape. Even in Saddams Iraq rapists were severly punnished. You know, part of the American South's culture was Slavery, so you know, we should just let them keep their slaves, because thats their way. No. No fucking way. Culture doesnt mean shit when you voilate human rights that bad. If your going to act like a child you should be treated as such. I dont think that we should go into every country and act like the worlds cop and push people around. But shit like this just cant go on. The world should band together and do something about pracitices like this. And sure, invading Saudi Arabia would invite a horrid backlash, but when push comes to shove we'll just nuke them.

Honestly, lets invade Saudi Arabia. Its one of the most barbaric regimes when it comes to civil rights and liberties. I dont give a shit about a "culture" that beleives in Rape. Even in Saddams Iraq rapists were severly punnished. You know, part of the American South's culture was Slavery, so you know, we should just let them keep their slaves, because thats their way. No. No fucking way. Culture doesnt mean shit when you voilate human rights that bad. If your going to act like a child you should be treated as such. I dont think that we should go into every country and act like the worlds cop and push people around. But shit like this just cant go on. The world should band together and do something about pracitices like this. And sure, invading Saudi Arabia would invite a horrid backlash, but when push comes to shove we'll just nuke them.

:D @ your nick.

:D @ your nick.

what?

what?
He finds your nick amusing.

That's nothing new, unfortunately, Saudi Arabistan is a primitive country. Other Islamic countries, in general, also tend to be backwards when it comes to women's rights.

Saudi Arabistan?

This is why Geography needs to be on the fucking SATs. Because of stupid shit like this.

I think nuking the country goes a bit too far, you'll incinerate millions of innocent people just to fry the corrupt dictatorship government. We should just stop doing business with them. Let those bastards choke on their oil.

what?

Total Domination 69

I see the reference is lost on ya. One can call it a sexual reference :D

I think nuking the country goes a bit too far, you'll incinerate millions of innocent people just to fry the corrupt dictatorship government. We should just stop doing business with them. Let those bastards choke on their oil.

And when their economy collapses, even more die hard extremists (more so than what is in power now) will over throw them and we'll have even more violations of human rights.

Total Domination 69

I see the reference is lost on ya. One can call it a sexual reference :D

um...does he want me? cuz im single now...:fluffle: ;)

And when their economy collapses, even more die hard extremists (more so than what is in power now) will over throw them and we'll have even more violations of human rights.

Exactly, so we nuke them right away.

^This.

But what pisses me off more is that we cooporate with these barbarians for our cheap oil prices. It pisses me off to see our leaders fly over there to have gay arabian sex and god knows what, just to save a few bucks.:( :mad:

This culture is a disgrace, and we should have nothing to do with it. Instead, we are "allies".:(

I couldn't agree more. You are right; we should have nothing to do with these barbaric terrorist nations whose only raisons d'etre are:

1. To use the money we pay them in exchange for their oil to attack us and fly planes into our buildings

2. To persecute and attempt to annihilate the Jewish state of Israel, our only real friend in the Middle East

3. To commit acts of misogyny and terrorism in the name of "religion".

Frankly, I don't see how a Muslim could proselytize an American woman to his religion, unless it were by force.

^This.

But what pisses me off more is that we cooporate with these barbarians for our cheap oil prices. It pisses me off to see our leaders fly over there to have gay arabian sex and god knows what, just to save a few bucks.:( :mad:

This culture is a disgrace, and we should have nothing to do with it. Instead, we are "allies".:(

I couldn't agree more. You are right; we should have nothing to do with these barbaric terrorist nations whose only raisons d'etre are:

1. To use the money we pay them in exchange for their oil to attack us and fly planes into our buildings

2. To persecute and attempt to annihilate the Jewish state of Israel, our only real friend in the Middle East

3. To commit acts of misogyny and terrorism in the name of "religion".

Frankly, I don't see how a Muslim could proselytize an American woman to his religion, unless it were by force.

^This.

But what pisses me off more is that we cooporate with these barbarians for our cheap oil prices. It pisses me off to see our leaders fly over there to have gay arabian sex and god knows what, just to save a few bucks.:( :mad:

This culture is a disgrace, and we should have nothing to do with it. Instead, we are "allies".:(

I couldn't agree more. You are right; we should have nothing to do with these barbaric terrorist nations whose only raisons d'etre seem to be :

1. To use the money we pay them in exchange for their oil to attack us and fly planes into our buildings

2. To persecute and attempt to annihilate the Jewish state of Israel, our only real friend in the Middle East

3. To commit acts of misogyny and terrorism in the name of "religion".

Frankly, I don't see how a radical Muslim could proselytize an American woman to his religion, unless it were by force.

A woman is getting prosecuted for being raped...

There is no need to spin this.
Once again, that is not at all what happened.

I think it's funny that you can abuse some one of being a Nazi when they are against certain cultures when nazi'ism is a culture and you are using as an insult, therefore defining your own boundary on what constitutes and inferior culture... so by your logic you are also a Nazi.

And the reason your 'line of reasoning never works' is because you make absolutely no sense.
as i have shown being against the nazi culture doe'snt mean that i hate all white people (with or without blonde hair)

Although I must admit I am prejudges against any one who has a box mustache

It seems like a contridiction but "I can't stand intolerence" actually does make sense.

I wouldn't say Saudi Culture is inferior I would say it in different words that are less racist. Saying something is inferior means that you are saying you are superior. Which is just waving your dick around. so :P

Well, this woman should not have been parading around like a whore.







....only jk

Yes, because anything she did could somehow warrant the rape. Her behavior is of no consequence to the FACT that she was raped by seven men some of whom got the benefit of the doubt when she didn't. Again, tell us all about your views about justice.

Of course her behaviour is of consequence. She made the decision to see that man, and if she really did have relations with him she certainly made a decision to do that too. If she hadn't none of this would have happened. Why is that not getting through to some people? Allah swt has given us laws and rules for a reason, so we don't get hurt or hurt others. When we don't follow them, we should be accountable for our actions, no?

He's an islamist. What do you expect? Islamists have no respect for Human Rights.

:rolleyes:

We can find the law ridiculous for requiring her never to be around a male who is not related to her. And the punishment seems beyond harsh.

But then again...was there not just a boy in Georgia (US) sentenced to 10 years for having sex with his girlfriend (http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=32&url_article_id=22700&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2), who was just a two years younger than him?

90 lashes for both the woman AND the man. Ten years without parole and a lifetime of being a registered sex offender, for consensual oral sex with girlfriend. Both are pretty fucking harsh.

Page 13 exists, but I can't seem to get to it...DAMN YOU JOLT!

Edit: all better now...but that was annoying!

Fabricated by the Zionists no doubt:rolleyes:

Don't feed the troll.

Yes, they pay their people just for being citizens, and people basically get paid not to work. Instead, they use foreigners as cheap labor.

Sounds pretty good to me.

Btw, nice calling me a troll to someone like IDF:rolleyes:

Having a recurring issue with not being to see the last page in a topic...

Despite having a reactionary religious culture, I respect the welfare state model in Saudi.

Yes, they pay their people just for being citizens, and people basically get paid not to work. Instead, they use foreigners as cheap labor.

Having a recurring issue with not being to see the last page in a topic...

Yeah, just happened to me too, plus the hyperspace drive seems to be at warp 10 today also.

We can find the law ridiculous for requiring her never to be around a male who is not related to her. And the punishment seems beyond harsh.

But then again...was there not just a boy in Georgia (US) sentenced to 10 years for having sex with his girlfriend (http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=32&url_article_id=22700&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2), who was just a two years younger than him?

90 lashes for both the woman AND the man. Ten years for consensual sex with girlfriend. Both are pretty fucking harsh.

That wasn't his(US young man) girlfriend, that was just a girl he invited to a motel room with drinks and drugs.

And 5/7 of the saudi men were also given 10 years in prison.

Of course her behaviour is of consequence. She made the decision to see that man, and if she really did have relations with him she certainly made a decision to do that too. If she hadn't none of this would have happened. Why is that not getting through to some people? Allah swt has given us laws and rules for a reason, so we don't get hurt or hurt others. When we don't follow them, we should be accountable for our actions, no?

:rolleyes:
So, do you approve of this punishment then?

And what happens by the way, should one say, oh I don't know, not believe in Allah's existence?

Why is it you seem like the type of person who would fall head over heals in love with the Saudi government?

Gee I wonder why?:D

Because they're rabid anti-Semites. IIRC, Jews are completely forbidden from entering the country.

IDF has his faults, but he doesn't defend the Saudis.

And..."sounds pretty good?" Why not try talking to someone who's lived as a domestic servant in Saudi Arabia. Then try to tell me it sounds "pretty good."

No one is forcing them to do so.

Sounds pretty good to me.

Btw, nice calling me a troll to someone like IDF:rolleyes:

IDF has his faults, but he doesn't defend the Saudis.

And..."sounds pretty good?" Why not try talking to someone who's lived as a domestic servant in Saudi Arabia. Then try to tell me it sounds "pretty good."

So, do you approve of this punishment then?

If she really did have a relationship with that guy, then she gets what she gets. If she didn't then I feel sorry for her because she made a bad decision and I would hope the man who threaten her with a lie would be dealt with harshly.

And what happens by the way, should one say, oh I don't know, not believe in Allah's existence?

Not my concern.

If she really did have a relationship with that guy, then she gets what she gets. If she didn't then I feel sorry for her because she made a bad decision and I would hope the man who threaten her with a lie would be dealt with harshly.
No, sorry, she really doesn't deserve this. The punishment is anything but proportional to the so-called crime.

Not my concern.
As I said, why should one obey the edicts of a fictional entity? The force of these laws is derived from their divine provenance. If this cannot be shown to exist, they are nothing but manmade tyranny. Not that their being God-made would elevate them much...

Flame much?



And precisely what law did she break? I see you have ZERO regards for human rights..

Human rights mean nothing if the government of a country does not observe them, there is nothing short of invasion that can stop it from happening. Chances are you and most of the people on this forum would be against an invasion of Saudi Arabia, so there is nothing we can do about it.

No one is forcing them to do so.

Wrong. Many get lured on false promises and get stuck and are forced to do it. It is a big racket.

Wrong. Many get lured on false promises and get stuck and are forced to do it. It is a big racket.
Lured, promised, fact is they weren't forced, but chose to do so, which I think is symbolic to the nature of this discussion.

Wrong. Many get lured on false promises and get stuck and are forced to do it. It is a big racket.

Yup. Including people from your country.

I fucking hate the Saudi government. :mad:

Of course her behaviour is of consequence. She made the decision to see that man, and if she really did have relations with him she certainly made a decision to do that too. If she hadn't none of this would have happened. Why is that not getting through to some people? Allah swt has given us laws and rules for a reason, so we don't get hurt or hurt others. When we don't follow them, we should be accountable for our actions, no?

It's getting through. What you're saying is just stupid and people are calling you on. We should be accountable for our actions. We should NOT be held accountable for the crimes of others. You have said repeatedly that the ridiculously high requirements for proof of rape are to protect the innocent, but then extend no such protection to a woman who was raped. It's not hard to see what the difference is between those you wish to protect and those you think got what they deserved. Not hard to see the difference at all.

So people are calling you on your BS. Either it's innocent until you've been PROVEN to have done something wrong. Or it's not. Where are the four pious women who witnessed her crime? Or is that only a requirement when it's men whose innocence is questioned?

So if a child is lured into a car with a stranger by candy, and said child gets raped and killed, that's okay, because no one "forced" the child into the car?

So your saying evil Saudis and cruising round the region in fancy cars luring little girls into their cars for candy, raping them and bringing them to Saudi for a lifetime of slavery? That's a bit of a leap...

Lured, promised, fact is they weren't forced, but chose to do so, which I think is symbolic to the nature of this discussion.

So if a child is lured into a car with a stranger by candy, and said child gets raped and killed, that's okay, because no one "forced" the child into the car?

Lured, promised, fact is they weren't forced, but chose to do so, which I think is symbolic to the nature of this discussion.

Most women aren't forced in rape either. They are simply coerced with the threat of violence, like the violence this woman would have endured had this man accused her of an affair. By your application, the majority of rapes would just be acts of marketing.

It's the same analogy. Innocent people being lied to, lured into a trap, and getting hurt.

So your saying foreign child labor is going on in Saudi? Please source this. Once people get to a certain age of maturity they are now responsible for their own actions. Your point is void because your assuming every single foreign worker in Saudi is helpless and unable to make their own decisions.

So your saying evil Saudis and cruising round the region in fancy cars luring little girls into their cars for candy, raping them and bringing them to Saudi for a lifetime of slavery? That's a bit of a leap...

It's the same analogy. Innocent people being lied to, lured into a trap, and getting hurt.

So your saying foreign child labor is going on in Saudi?

Show me where I said that.

Please source this.

What for? You'd just dismiss it.

So people are calling you on your BS. Either it's innocent until you've been PROVEN to have done something wrong. Or it's not. Where are the four pious women who witnessed her crime? Or is that only a requirement when it's men whose innocence is questioned?
Then there is the question of whether these laws are even reasonable... seriously, 90 lashes because "Allah" says so?



What for? You'd just dismiss it.
Your bourgeois news sources are nothing but tainted representations of your class bias, foul capitalist swine!

Then there is the question of whether these laws are even reasonable... seriously, 90 lashes because "Allah" says so?


Well... I don't know. Just thinking if you were a young woman and wanted to have some fun with some guys you just met you probly wouldn't think 'Oh no I could get raped'. But you might think 'oh no even if I don't get raped I'll get lashed because they aren't related to me'. I don't know the law maybe shouldn't even go there.

Your bourgeois news sources are nothing but tainted representations of your class bias, foul capitalist swine!

Hehehe :D

Show me where I said that.



What for? You'd just dismiss it.

Well if you don't think child labor is going on in Saudi, or labor involving the coercion of underage people, then those foreign workers are in Saudi made the choice to do so, as they are of the legal age to do, and as such it is legal.

I think it's funny that you can abuse some one of being a Nazi when they are against certain cultures when nazi'ism is a culture and you are using as an insult, therefore defining your own boundary on what constitutes and inferior culture... so by your logic you are also a Nazi.

:rolleyes:

The nazi party is not a culture. What DCD said is not like calling Nazis savages, but calling Germans savages. And I know that DCD is not an actual nazi - he just happens, in this case, to be echoing their mindset.

And the reason your 'line of reasoning never works' is because you make absolutely no sense.

...

Please (re)read what I wrote. Better yet, let the person I was posting to, make their own response, since you don't seem to be understanding it at all.

as i have shown being against the nazi culture doe'snt mean that i hate all white people (with or without blonde hair)

If however I said, "What do you expect from savages" when something bad happens in Germany, I would be exhibiting bigotry and potentially racism. Nazi-thinking.

Well if you don't think child labor is going on in Saudi, or labor involving the coercion of underage people, then those foreign workers are in Saudi made the choice to do so, as they are of the legal age to do, and as such it is legal.

:rolleyes:

Are you dense?

Many of them are lied to and held illegally (passports will be withheld from them and they will be given only a paltry of what they were promised when they signed on etc etc...).

It is only a bit short of slavery.

I have personally talked to people who escaped from such conditions.

Well if you don't think child labor is going on in Saudi, or labor involving the coercion of underage people, then those foreign workers are in Saudi made the choice to do so, as they are of the legal age to do, and as such it is legal.

Let's say you're starting on a street in Calcutta. I come up to you, clearly affluent, and offer you some food. I tell you that if you come with me, you can get more food. You follow, believing me, or at least feeling you've got nothing left to lose at this point. You end up in the back of a van, and then inside either a cargo freighter or some similarly unpleasant mode of transport.
When you get off, you're told that you now have to work off the expense of travel. You'll be fed, in meager amounts, beaten regularly if your work is not up to task, and will face further abuse or even death if you attempt to flee.

Is this not forced labor?

This happens every day on a street in a third world country. Sometimes they end up in Saudi Arabia. Sometimes they end up in a sweat shop in the Bronx.

Welcome to reality.

Well what do you expect from savages?

On the upside: they only lash her. Christians would have stoned her to death, or forced her to marry the rapist if she were single.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29:
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24:

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

And how terrible that 'no means no' is a recent occurrence in the West as well. Though we just dragged the victim through the metaphorical mud in court and revictimised her, rather than giving her actual lashes. I suppose that's a bit of an improvement if you totally disregard the psychological impact.

Horror. We actually try rape suspects and submit rape allegations to a cross-examination by the defense attorney rather then doing... what, exactly?

On the upside: they only lash her. Christians would have stoned her to death, or forced her to marry the rapist if she were single.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29:
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24:

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

OT law is more brutal than anything in Islam.

OT law is more brutal than anything in Islam.

Won't argue there.

Although i don't support the Saudi Law, I think that people have a right to what they belive in, even if it is 'barbaric'. People in these forums seem to have no respect for Islam (just what i think). So calling saudis 'Savages' seems slightly extreme.

Although i don't support the Saudi Law, I think that people have a right to what they belive in, even if it is 'barbaric'. People in these forums seem to have no respect for Islam (just what i think). So calling saudis 'Savages' seems slightly extreme.

Extremism isn't necessarily wrong.

Although i don't support the Saudi Law, I think that people have a right to what they belive in, even if it is 'barbaric'. People in these forums seem to have no respect for Islam (just what i think). So calling saudis 'Savages' seems slightly extreme.


Why does it seem extreme? They plan to flog a rape victim. Perhaps if this were your daughter or sister or mother you would think differently?

Brutal, violent savages like this are not protected by "self determination" - there are higher ethical imperatives than that.

It is correct to shoot nazi camp executioners in the face, it is correct to shoot rape-victim-floggers in the face.

Right and wrong are not meaningless.

Until I see a source besides Fox News, I remain skeptical.

other then the article listing two additional sources for the article, what news source would you trust and is it that you simply so not trust a single source or that it's because the source is FOX? If the former you are provided with two additional, if the latter then why the bias?

Well Fox is obviously bias, but I tend to stay away even from the mainstream news media, not really because of bias as much they are too skimpy on details and don't give you the full story in all it's angles.

Cultural relativism, like any other belief has its limitations. Cases such as these are one of those limitation. As a cultural relativist, I would like to believe that Saudi culture is as important and valid as the cultures that have formed my upbringing. But if it culturally acceptable to punish a rape victim in Saudi Arabia, I have a hard time reconciling that with my belief in the equal validity of both cultures.

I must admit, however, that I have a bias. As a person who was raised in western cultures, I have this inherent belief that those cultures are better. So there is a lot of subjectivity to it. But there is some objectivity we can apply to the situation: punishing women for being raped is bad. Now, most western cultures are finally getting rid of those laws that punish women for being rape victims, while many middle eastern cultures are not.

So are we better than them? All I can say is that many western cultures are apparently better at changing their laws to respect women's rights, when compared to certain middle eastern cultures. This is something I have observed. I do not know if these observations can be used to supoort a theory of cultural superiority. I do not think so.

But to be honest, that is not the first question I think we should ask. I think the first question is what can we do to stop this happening again?
Thank you for that.

See thats what I have a problem with in the case. She said she was "blackmailed" however she was not forced to go. If its not true that they had a relationship outside of marriage, the truth would have came out, the man would have been punished for lying about it and nothing would happen to her. It is was true that she did have a relationship outside of marriage, then sorry to say its her own fault of what trouble she gets into. Allah has said such relationships are Haraam. If she would have followed that, none of this would have happened. Either way she didnt have to meet him.

This is Saudi Arabia we're talking about here. Get that through your thick skull. As far as the authorities are concerned, if the man said she had a relationship with him, then as far as the law is concerned, she did, and because she's a woman, her word doesn't count as much as his. Something horrible would have probably happened to her in this case as well.

It's a bit of a lose lose situation when you have fucked up fundamentalism as the law in a country.

Glad to see that we're clear on the fact that in Soviestan's eyes, women are at fault if they get raped.

- there are higher ethical imperatives than that. such as? and coming whence?

There is but one point to be made here, and you keep your goddamned racial, ethical, cultural, religious, government mentality out of it. It's a single solitary point which only the dumbest fucks would argue:

A wanna is being punished after coming out about being raped, which only happened because she submitted to going along with someone that was going to blackmail her, and came out about the rape even after the rapists in question ALSO threatened to blackmail her.

The point to be made is: Should this woman be punished for telling the truth of what happened?

Me thinks not. She was alone with a man? Yes... After he BLACKMAILED HER. It's called extenuating circumstances. Your law should maybe be changed to cover that. I'm sure if YOU, as a government official, were blackmailed into getting into a car with a woman, you wouldn't be punished. No, but the woman would. Right. Pray that she doesn't rape you!

I think we've all agreed the woman shouldn't be punished, but has anyone looked at the rapists' punishments?

These rapists are merely being flogged. These men are also guilty of adultery, they were married. Shouldn't they be stoned to death, like what happens to women when they're convicted of adultery there?

Or even better... the Muslim Koran doesn't even specify stoning for adultery. Why not just lash people of either gender who cheat on their spouses?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256980,00.html

Damn Saudis punishing a woman who was raped.

hmm and u got this from FOX news.. that's as good as propaganda goes.

Or even better... the Muslim Koran doesn't even specify stoning for adultery. Why not just lash people of either gender who cheat on their spouses?

Because it's Saudi Arabia. Their policy is to control and exploit their people using the most batshit-insane fundamentalist version of Islam they can regardless of whether or not it actually has any real, actual theological basis in Islam.

I think we've all agreed the woman shouldn't be punished, but has anyone looked at the rapists' punishments?

These rapists are merely being flogged. These men are also guilty of adultery, they were married. Shouldn't they be stoned to death, like what happens to women when they're convicted of adultery there?

Or even better... the Muslim Koran doesn't even specify stoning for adultery. Why not just lash people of either gender who cheat on their spouses?

How about no lashing for adultery?

We can find the law ridiculous for requiring her never to be around a male who is not related to her. And the punishment seems beyond harsh.

But then again...was there not just a boy in Georgia (US) sentenced to 10 years for having sex with his girlfriend (http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=32&url_article_id=22700&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2), who was just a two years younger than him?

90 lashes for both the woman AND the man. Ten years without parole and a lifetime of being a registered sex offender, for consensual oral sex with girlfriend. Both are pretty fucking harsh.

I'll agree with you there as well.

Sounds pretty good to me.

Btw, nice calling me a troll to someone like IDF:rolleyes:

That's because you are a troll.

If she really did have a relationship with that guy, then she gets what she gets. If she didn't then I feel sorry for her because she made a bad decision and I would hope the man who threaten her with a lie would be dealt with harshly.

No one deserves to get lashes. This is not the midevil period nor the 18 or 19th centuries. This is the 21st century and that is a mark of being barbarians.

Not my concern.

Deny allah over there and you will not have your head as they'll take it off your shoulders. Another barbaric practice.

Human rights mean nothing if the government of a country does not observe them, there is nothing short of invasion that can stop it from happening. Chances are you and most of the people on this forum would be against an invasion of Saudi Arabia, so there is nothing we can do about it.

Actually, I would be in favor of it as 19 of the 20 came from there.

Yup. Including people from your country.

I fucking hate the Saudi government. :mad:

Hear Hear!!

It's getting through. What you're saying is just stupid and people are calling you on. We should be accountable for our actions. We should NOT be held accountable for the crimes of others. You have said repeatedly that the ridiculously high requirements for proof of rape are to protect the innocent, but then extend no such protection to a woman who was raped. It's not hard to see what the difference is between those you wish to protect and those you think got what they deserved. Not hard to see the difference at all.

So people are calling you on your BS. Either it's innocent until you've been PROVEN to have done something wrong. Or it's not. Where are the four pious women who witnessed her crime? Or is that only a requirement when it's men whose innocence is questioned?

Don't confuse the poor islamist. He's so wrapped up in religion that he cannot see what we are saying.

:rolleyes:

Are you dense?

Many of them are lied to and held illegally (passports will be withheld from them and they will be given only a paltry of what they were promised when they signed on etc etc...).

It is only a bit short of slavery.

I have personally talked to people who escaped from such conditions.

Andreas Prime does not understand what is going on in Saudi Arabia. He supports the system because of its welfare. Naturally he won't see the dirty business that goes on there.

hmm and u got this from FOX news.. that's as good as propaganda goes.

Why don't you read the thread as two additional sources are there. The same two that are listed in the damn article. Grow up.

Don't confuse the poor islamist. He's so wrapped up in religion that he cannot see what we are saying.

Soviestan is not an islamist - at least not in the ethymological sense. He doesn't have the foggiest knowledge of ACTUAL Islam, and favors repulsive cultural, not religious, traits, because people that CLAIM to follow his religions have said traits. I only studied a bit of islam due to being an occultist, and I know that, no, true Islam does not include this kind of repulsive behavior. I've stated several times and I state again, Soviestan knows as much about Islam as fundie Christians know about Christianity.

That said, if you take "islamist" to mean "supports the Fred-Phelps-ian morons that claim to follow his religion while also CLAIMING to follow it", we are in agreement.

I think we've all agreed the woman shouldn't be punished, but has anyone looked at the rapists' punishments?

These rapists are merely being flogged. These men are also guilty of adultery, they were married. Shouldn't they be stoned to death, like what happens to women when they're convicted of adultery there?

Or even better... the Muslim Koran doesn't even specify stoning for adultery. Why not just lash people of either gender who cheat on their spouses?

These men are not merely flogged. They are also given jail sentences, and as I've pointed out, those jail sentences are not shockingly less that what you'll find rapists getting in Canada, or even in the US.

The woman was punished for being alone with a man who was NOT one of her rapists. Both she, and this man, will receive 90 lashes.

She was not punished for being raped, as the OP so falsely claims.

Bad punishment, on that we agree. But I've already brough up a ridiculous sentence (oral sex with a consenting girl 2 years his minor resulting in 10 years without parole, and a lifetime of being a registered sex offender) in the US as a counter-example. Why? Because as much as some of the supremacists in this thread want to believe that their country is oh so much better than Saudi Arabia...the fact is, the 'gap' in justice is not nearly as wide as the OP would have you believe.

No one deserves to get lashes. This is not the midevil period nor the 18 or 19th centuries. This is the 21st century and that is a mark of being barbarians. Oh I see the light now!

Lashing people...bad.

Tossing people (usually men) into prisons where rape at the hands of other prisoners is not only expected, but often CONDONED AS A PART OF THE PUNISHMENT FOR THOSE INCARCERATED, not only by the authorities, but also by the general populace....good?

BOTH are marks of savagery.

Oh I see the light now!

Lashing people...bad.

Indeed. You stated that yourself.

Indeed. You stated that yourself.

Kindly quote the rest of my post and answer it:

Oh I see the light now!

Lashing people...bad.

Tossing people (usually men) into prisons where rape at the hands of other prisoners is not only expected, but often CONDONED AS A PART OF THE PUNISHMENT FOR THOSE INCARCERATED, not only by the authorities, but also by the general populace....good?

BOTH are marks of savagery.

YOU are the one asserting this is the sign of barbarity as we are now in the 21st century and lashing should simply not happen. Well I agree. But I also want you to address the implied superiority you have taken over Saudi culture by telling me how you support the counter-example, occurring right there in your own country?

As well, have you yet apologised for completely mischaracterising this story, falsely claiming that a woman was punished for being raped? Or are you going to claim (I believe I've seen this from you before) that you just didn't read the article you posted?

Horror. We actually try rape suspects and submit rape allegations to a cross-examination by the defense attorney rather then doing... what, exactly?

I see you've missed the point completely.

In the 'good old days', the woman making the accusation was also put on trial. Her dress, her mannerisms, her past sexual history, all drawn out in lurid detail, because only chaste, virginal women in clothes that hide her shape can be raped, right?

In Canada, and in most states of the US, this is no longer allowed. When you are viciously assaulted, the way you dress and the sex you've had is irrelevant. Victims of vicious physical assault we not put on trial this way...only women who were victims of sexual assault.

Now, a woman is cross-examined, and RELEVANT details are brought in. Trying to make her look like a lying whore who asked for it? Not so encouraged anymore.

And yet that was the standard operating procedure up until (with examples running into) the last two decades. Making a woman look like a lying whore who asked for it.

Kind of like the attitudes about rape in other countries that everyone is so set on (rightly) condemning...without considering how ingrained those same attitudes have been in our own societies throughout most of their history.

I see you've missed the point completely.

In the 'good old days', the woman making the accusation was also put on trial. Her dress, her mannerisms, her past sexual history, all drawn out in lurid detail, because only chaste, virginal women in clothes that hide her shape can be raped, right?

In Canada, and in most states of the US, this is no longer allowed. When you are viciously assaulted, the way you dress and the sex you've had is irrelevant. Victims of vicious physical assault we not put on trial this way...only women who were victims of sexual assault.

Now, a woman is cross-examined, and RELEVANT details are brought in. Trying to make her look like a lying whore who asked for it? Not so encouraged anymore.

And yet that was the standard operating procedure up until (with examples running into) the last two decades. Making a woman look like a lying whore who asked for it.

Kind of like the attitudes about rape in other countries that everyone is so set on (rightly) condemning...without considering how ingrained those same attitudes have been in our own societies throughout most of their history.


It's still common to make her look like a lying whore in the media. There is a big problem nearly world-wide with the way rape victims are treated, both in that we don't handle alleged rape victims with kid gloves and that we don't prosecute women proven to have been using the law as a weapon as if they are rapists.

I think it does a disservice to actual rape victims, like the woman in the OP, to not deal harshly with people proven to have been making false accusations. False accusations are common in divorce proceedings and various other similar types of ralationship strife and lead to an unnecessary cynicism toward rape victims. Alleged victims should get every benefit of the doubt. Women or men who are proven guilty of rape or a false accusation of rape should be addressed harshly and swiftly.

Your acting as if she is completely innocent, which she's not so lets quit pretending like she is. If she did have relations with this man outside of marriage as it appears she did, then she did something Allah swt has said clearly she shouldn't. If she had followed what Allah has said, absolutely none this would have happened. She made the choice to go astray, she must live with the consquences.That said, people need to stop trying to spin this to make it look like something its not.

Sovietstan,

She was blackmailed into seeing the first guy. Do you realise what this means? He contacted her and said that if she did not meet him, he would tell the authorities that she was meeting him. Consequently, she would have received ninety lashes for a crime she did not commit. Or she could choose to meet him and hope the authorities did not find out, and thereby avoid the lashes. Either of these decisions are bad decisions, but she had to choose one. Considering the rights of women in Saudi Arabia, I do not think she could have safely gone to the authorities to press blackmail charges against the man.

She did not have any concensual relations with the man, so she has followed the word of Allah. It is those who are punishing her who are ignoring the word of Allah. Does not the Quran tell us to be staunch in justice:

4:135 O ye who believe! Be ye staunch in justice, witnesses for Allah, even though it be against yourselves or (your) parents or (your) kindred, whether (the case be of) a rich man or a poor man, for Allah is nearer unto both (them ye are). So follow not passion lest ye lapse (from truth) and if ye lapse or fall away, then lo! Allah is ever Informed of what ye do.

How is it just to punish the victim, who was forced to do what she did?

Does not Allah ordain love and mercy beteween men and women?

30:21 And of His signs is this: He created for you helpmeets from yourselves that ye might find rest in them, and He ordained between you love and mercy. Lo! herein indeed are portents for folk who reflect.

This woman has not been treated with love and mercy by the man who blackmailed her, or the rapists, or the government authorities, or even you. If you want the honour of calling yourselves Muslim, then you must understand and follow the precepts of Islam.

17:36 (O man), follow not that whereof thou hast no knowledge. Lo! the hearing and the sight and the heart - of each of these it will be asked.

Well done Gift-of-God :)

Snip.

And that is how Gift-of-God, with a magnificent text, shows what I pointed out: That Soviestan misinterprets Islam.

No one deserves to get lashes. This is not the midevil period nor the 18 or 19th centuries. This is the 21st century and that is a mark of being barbarians.

why is lashes anymore barbaric than locking someone up for 23 hours a day in a 6x6 windowless room with bad food for at times years? At least once the lashes are over, your punishment is done.

Deny allah over there and you will not have your head as they'll take it off your shoulders. Another barbaric practice.

I don't deny Allah, so like I said its none of my concern.

why is lashes anymore barbaric than locking someone up for 23 hours a day in a 6x6 windowless room with bad food for at times years? At least once the lashes are over, your punishment is done.
Why do you (and others here) keep on trying to shift what is being discussed? As I recall, no one has lauded such punishments as the above! Lashing is barbaric though, especially when a noncriminal is the victim thereof. I wonder, what happens if she dies as a result of the punishment? Is the sweet compensation that she gets to go near to her tyrant of a god?

I don't deny Allah, so like I said its none of my concern.
If you cannot positively prove Allah's existence, any laws derived from him are meaningless. Simply believing he exists will not suffice.

Sovietstan,

She was blackmailed into seeing the first guy. Do you realise what this means? He contacted her and said that if she did not meet him, he would tell the authorities that she was meeting him. Consequently, she would have received ninety lashes for a crime she did not commit. Or she could choose to meet him and hope the authorities did not find out, and thereby avoid the lashes. Either of these decisions are bad decisions, but she had to choose one. Considering the rights of women in Saudi Arabia, I do not think she could have safely gone to the authorities to press blackmail charges against the man.
He wasn't going to tell the authorities because they both would have been punished, he was going to tell her family. What she should have done was not meet him and call him on his lie, then only he would have been punished.

She did not have any concensual relations with the man, so she has followed the word of Allah. It is those who are punishing her who are ignoring the word of Allah. Does not the Quran tell us to be staunch in justice:
You don't know that she did not have consenual relations with him, the facts aren't in yet but it appears that she in fact did. Thus, she did not follow Allah and thus justice would be to punish her accordingly.


How is it just to punish the victim, who was forced to do what she did?
she wasn't force to do anything. She made the choice herself.

Does not Allah ordain love and mercy beteween men and women?
yes, of course.


This woman has not been treated with love and mercy by the man who blackmailed her, or the rapists, or the government authorities, or even you. If you want the honour of calling yourselves Muslim, then you must understand and follow the precepts of Islam.
You can be loving and merciful while still carrying out punishment which is just.