|
Shia rape victim sentenced to jail and 200 lashes in Saudi Arabia (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Flotser
As soon as Iran has Nuclear weapons and the ability to attack the west with it (using missiles/terror organization/etc.) the picture will change drastically. They can start doing really crazy things and the world will be afraid to react. |
Oh ffs stop living in in fear,life is too short.There is no nukes and there never will be. it is all bull politics.
you wanna get rid of nukes? then start with your own damn country. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Flotser
As soon as Iran has Nuclear weapons and the ability to attack the west with it (using missiles/terror organization/etc.) the picture will change drastically. They can start doing really crazy things and the world will be afraid to react. |
EXACTLY like North Korea has right? Oh, wait... |
|
|
| George Smiley |
fayraree, as I don't recall seeing you before, I can assure you (and every single person on this forum will also assure you) that I was not equating the actions of the Saudi state to a gerneralisation of ALL Muslims! It is, in my opinon, an extreme interpretation of Islam (albeit, as I'm sure you'll point out, a completely wrong one) and I also fully recognise that it is even an extreme form of Sharia law (when you compare it to Hamas, or even the Turkish government right now)
My criticism is directed solely at the Saudi regime, and not the religion (or region) as a whole (search +george +smiley +lazfx for the ultimate proof :D) |
|
|
| zoogla |
| I can't be bothered to continue my thought...this topic bores me now. :o |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
My criticism is directed solely at the Saudi regime, and not the religion (or region) as a whole (search +george +smiley +lazfx for the ultimate proof :D) |
Haha, a very valid point indeed :D. |
|
|
| Krypton |
Sucks a be a woman in Saudia Arabia for sure...:nervous:
Then again, who are we to tell the Saudis how to run their country?
If they want sharia law, let them have, it's not our business.
I really want the hypocrisy to stop, and the lying. How many times have we been told, "We're liberators, not conquerors." BULL. And if our job was to liberate, we'de be North Korea shutting down their concentration camps and torture chambers. We'de "liberate" sudan. ...:mad: |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Then again, who are we to tell the Saudis how to run their country?
If they want sharia law, let them have, it's not our business.
|
bollocks. every country should have a right to speak up against crimes against humanity. who is "they" that want sharia law? how do you equate oppression with democratic acceptance? why should ANY country be free to institute/maintain laws that the rest of the world find abhorrent?
where is this great divide between peoples that stipulates you cannot care for your neighbour if that neighbour resides on the other side of an arbitrary line on a map?
it just reeks of greedy isolationism. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
bollocks. every country should have a right to speak up against crimes against humanity. who is "they" that want sharia law? how do you equate oppression with democratic acceptance? why should ANY country be free to institute/maintain laws that the rest of the world find abhorrent?
where is this great divide between peoples that stipulates you cannot care for your neighbour if that neighbour resides on the other side of an arbitrary line on a map?
it just reeks of greedy isolationism. |
It's called the right to self-determination, and is a respect of sovereignty. HARDLY isolationist. I find the laws over there as not representative of pure justice, but again, what am I going to do, call for another Operation desert storm? It doesn't matter whether you or the entire world finds Saudi laws abhorrent. We all still have to respect their sovereignty.
Who said don't care for anyone, even across the world? Isolationism is North Korea. American before World War II was non-interventionist, and that's what I believe we should be. Peace and commerce with all, conflict with none. Something this country was founded on over 200 years ago. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
It's called the right to self-determination, and is a respect of sovereignty. HARDLY isolationist. I find the laws over there as not representative of pure justice, but again, what am I going to do, call for another Operation desert storm? It doesn't matter whether you or the entire world finds Saudi laws abhorrent. We all still have to respect their sovereignty. |
There is nothing wrong, indeed it is profoundly democratic, with countries exerting pressure on other countries. That has nothing to do with ignoring sovereignty, and in some areas, such as the environment, governments should have every right to make judgements on how other governments are conducting themselves. I also find your notion of "self determination" particularly amusing in the context of saudi arabia, exactly how much self determinism do you think women have in that country? How can it be said that a government is a representative of "self determinism" when that government only represents or listens to the needs of 50% of the population?
no one is saying we should invade saudi. but there's nothing wrong with other less distasteful means for bringing about social, political and economic change.
every country in the world should be a liberal democracy, and the current advanced liberal democracies should do all that they can to foster that socio-political evolution.
| quote: |
Peace and commerce with all, conflict with none. Something this country was founded on over 200 years ago. |
yeah, after a war(s) to end (amongst other things) abhorrent laws ;) |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
It's called the right to self-determination, and is a respect of sovereignty. HARDLY isolationist. I find the laws over there as not representative of pure justice, but again, what am I going to do, call for another Operation desert storm? It doesn't matter whether you or the entire world finds Saudi laws abhorrent. We all still have to respect their sovereignty. |
Sorry mate, I usually have a lot of time for what you have to say but in this case you're talking bollocks. 'Respect for sovereignty' is a UN construct that is contradicted by their other construct: the respect for human rights. Respect for sovereignty is fine as long as the country in question is not a chronic human rights abuser. The best example is Serbia and Kosovo. Were we to just sit around while the Serbs ethnically cleansed Kosovo because we believed we should respect the Serbs right to sovereignty? Of course not.
There are universal rights that apply to everyone around the world, and they override any cultural sensitivities people may have. Being sentenced to lashes for showing your hair or being hung for having sex with someone are unacceptable and should be opposed, unreservedly, by any right minded person.
You seem to think (probably because in America, foreign affairs = war) that we need to invade a country we disagree with, but that is just crap. Look at Turkey - they want to join the EU but had/have an appalling human rights record. Their government is conservative and religious. Yet the progress Turkey has made so far, even tho it has loads further to go, shows that countries can change for the better given the right kind of dilpomacy. Any country that has agreements with the EU (not just those that want to join it) have to meet political criteria.
There is no reason Saudi Arabia should be treated any different than how the EU treats Turkey, especially considering the amount of American aid they receive. There are two halves to the Saudi regime, one side that is, according to America, reformist and the other side which is religious and is responsible for these horrible acts that are the subject of this thread. I think we can all guess that the "reformists" are not too concerned about reforming anything as long as they contunie to live their billionaire livestyles. Well lets see how eager they are to make good on their promises of reform and put pressure on the religious half of the government once their aid has been stopped and they are subject to international banning orders... |
|
|
| zoogla |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
There are universal rights that apply to everyone around the world, and they override any cultural sensitivities people may have. Being sentenced to lashes for showing your hair or being hung for having sex with someone are unacceptable and should be opposed, unreservedly, by any right minded person. |
How about capital punishment? Do murderers have a right to live? Why does the beacon of democracy, U.S.A., still allow for capital punishment?
I agree that there are certain universal principles for human rights, but I disagree that lashings and hangings are universal. In fact, you should be saying they should be opposed by any "left minded person" lol. Having lived in different countries, I tend to be a moral relativist and my notion of whether certain laws are ethical or not is more relaxed. However, you are not talking about laws; rather, it seems everyone in this thread is concerned about punishments.
I don't know if anyone here has studied basic legal philosophy with Austin or Hart's notions of positivisim. I think we could have an interesting analysis of this issue using their theories. These guys have arguably formed the foundation of laws for the Western, democratic world, and I would argue that both of them would agree that Saudi Arabia's legal system is justified and ethical.
To explore your problem with Saudi punishments, what are your views of parental disciplining of children? Should parents be allowed to "lash" (or "whip" which is the same thing) their kids on their butts with belts? This has been around in private boys' schools for centuries in DEMOCRATIC British, Canadian, and U.S. Punishments are a matter of tradition, not religion, imho.
Wow I keep getting sucked in here! :crazy: |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by fayraree
How about capital punishment? Do murderers have a right to live? Why does the beacon of democracy, U.S.A., still allow for capital punishment? |
I don't agree with capital punishment. I think its a barbaric act carried out by savages.
| quote: | | I agree that there are certain universal principles for human rights, but I disagree that lashings and hangings are universal. In fact, you should be saying they should be opposed by any "left minded person" lol. Having lived in different countries, I tend to be a moral relativist and my notion of whether certain laws are ethical or not is more relaxed. However, you are not talking about laws; rather, it seems everyone in this thread is concerned about punishments. |
In the Saudi case, both the laws and punishments are unnecessary. I couldn't give two s where you've lived, making it against the law to show your hair in public, or being sentenced to lashes as a means of punishment are all things you should oppose. If you think this is ok, stop fannying about and say so (and then everyone else can tell you what they think of you)
| quote: | | I don't know if anyone here has studied basic legal philosophy with Austin or Hart's notions of positivisim. I think we could have an interesting analysis of this issue using their theories. These guys have arguably formed the foundation of laws for the Western, democratic world, and I would argue that both of them would agree that Saudi Arabia's legal system is justified and ethical. |
No I have not studied legal philosophy (sounds like a Mickey Mouse course if you ask me) and no I don't think it would be interesting in the slightest to hear two tossers try and justify the Saudi legal system, as I find it equally disinteresing listening to you try and justify it.
| quote: | | To explore your problem with Saudi punishments, what are your views of parental disciplining of children? Should parents be allowed to "lash" (or "whip" which is the same thing) their kids on their butts with belts? This has been around in private boys' schools for centuries in DEMOCRATIC British, Canadian, and U.S. Punishments are a matter of tradition, not religion, imho. |
No idea about Canada or America, but this doesn't happen in the UK any more. And fyi, there is a huge difference between giving a kid a clip round the ear or slapping their arse, and potentially lethal uses of force. I don't think there is any excuse EVER for an unnecessary amount of force to be used, so no, I don't think kids should be 'belted'.
Either way - tradition/religion - makes no difference, it's still wrong and there is no way you can justify the Saudi legal system |
|
|
|
|
