It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Saudi gets sentance of 90 lashes for breaking the law

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Pokey the only problem I see with your arguement is the fact that the US is the only nation to ever use nukes, not once but twice, not on military but on civilians.
These other nations that are wanting or trying to develop nukes are doing it out of fear of ....you guessed it, the only nation to ever use nukes.
They want nukes as insurance.
They would never use nukes pre-emptivly because they know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, because we have done it before, they KNOW that we would obliterate them.
They also know that militarily we would crush them without using nukes, so their only assurance against US invasion is......nukes.

Sorry this is off topic but I felt it should be addressed.




posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Pokey the only problem I see with your arguement is the fact that the US is the only nation to ever use nukes, not once but twice, not on military but on civilians.


I'm sorry, but I am SO tired of that point. Yes, we did use nukes on Japan, however, Japan intentionally killed FAR more civilians during that war using far nastier WMD's, chemical and biological, than the U.S. did using those two a-bombs. People are still dying to this day in some villages thanks to the bio weapons Japan unleashed on them. Two wrongs don't make a right, but Japan was far from an innocent victim....



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Japan was far from an innocent victim....


And that my friends is EXACTLY what you (not all of you, but SOME of you) accused me of saying about the poor woman in this article.
However, I never said she was far from an innocent victim. I think she was victimized all the way around. She was in the wrong place at the wrong time, which had she not been breaking the law, well, you know how I feel.

This 27jd guy thinks that over 100,000 innocent japenese women and children deserved to be nuked.....
Is there no outcry over his statement?
How do women and children deserve to be nuked?
Val, care to step in here?



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Pokey the only problem I see with your arguement is the fact that the US is the only nation to ever use nukes, not once but twice, not on military but on civilians.


Firstly World War II was a rather primitive war and I believe more people died in the fire-bombing of Dresden Germany than those that died from Atomic bombs in Japan. In fact, here is a quote:



"You guys burnt the place down, turned it into a single column of flame. More people died there in the firestorm, in that one big flame, than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined." --Kurt Vonnegut, Jr


World War II was the kind of War that everyone should pray never happens again. It was all out, modernized war but from a primitive mindset.

Subjucation of a country by decimating its civilians and attmepting to demoralize them into surrender was a tactic that had been used for thousands of years, you may want to read up on the Roman Empire. Sadly, World War II taught us that old warring tactics when used with powerful modern weapons could only ever lead to the decimation of a planet.

It is also worth pointing out that Japan was "nuked" a second time because they REFUSED to surrender. So I ask you, how much blame do you place on the Emperor and his refusal to capitulate for reasons of honour that resulted in even more deaths.

More so, the US was not the aggressor and was defending itself. War had been declared and Japan elected to continue to fight its perceived enemy. To further explain, the decision to use the atomic bomb was because it was calculated that MORE Japanese people would die from a ground invasion then by forcing capitulation through fear of total annihilation.

Another quote:



...It took the United States and our allies another three and a half years after Midway to ultimately prevail. That time would have been longer if not for the sudden and enormous loss of life suffered by the Japanese people through the use of the atomic bomb.

You may recall that the Japanese had decided to sacrifice every last man, woman and child during an invasion of Japan. They conceded defeat when the loss of life escalated so dramatically.


Seriously Bravo, most complex subject matters can't be boiled down into bite size pieces of morality to fit your tastes for personal consumption.


Originally posted by 11Bravo
These other nations that are wanting or trying to develop nukes are doing it out of fear of ....you guessed it, the only nation to ever use nukes.
They want nukes as insurance.


In all seriousness, you can't prove that. It's just pure speculation on your behalf. For all you know North Korea has developed nukes so that it can decimate the South and pay back an age old dishonour. See, I can make up reasons too. And there are a lot of other countries out there with nuclear capabilities, that they developed themselves (not given by the US), that present as much of a threat to the world. You do remember Russia and the Cold War arms race right? And yet, MAD (Mutually assured Destruction) has kept us from a Nuclear War.

Another thing, Russia is still happily selling weapons and ammunition to Iran and are quite chummy, read allies. I am sure that if Iran was nuked that their own nuclear capable allies would have something to say about it.


Originally posted by 11Bravo
They would never use nukes pre-emptivly because they know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, because we have done it before, they KNOW that we would obliterate them.
They also know that militarily we would crush them without using nukes, so their only assurance against US invasion is......nukes.

Sorry this is off topic but I felt it should be addressed.


The real problem is when they give this nuke to a terrorist to cowardly attack us whilst they can sit back and feign ignorance.

Pokey Oats



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
This 27jd guy thinks that over 100,000 innocent japenese women and children deserved to be nuked.....
Is there no outcry over his statement?
How do women and children deserve to be nuked?
Val, care to step in here?

Did over a million UK men, women and children have to die in the blitz so we may not have surrendered?

Does anyone deserve to die?



Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means

[[[Qur'an]] 4:34 English translation: Yusuf Ali.
en.wikipedia.org...

Rather...outdated....thinking IMO since women are obviosly superior in the terms of skill and ability (Hence IMO why women make better sports men , thier technique is always superior because they are "Not as strong" as the male side)
But then again this is the rule of Allah that could not have been altered or changed from the original idea.



[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
This 27jd guy thinks that over 100,000 innocent japenese women and children deserved to be nuked.....


Wait, I get it, obviously I never said that, but you're trying to draw a parallel between the fact that I pointed out how Japan also used WMD's as a response to the WAY too often parroted "the U.S. was the only country to use nukes" line, and the fact that you said the woman was also breaking the law and wouldn't have been in the position to be raped which caused some to overreact and say you condoned her rape. Very clever. Yes, the U.S. being forced to make a terrible decision to stop a major war and the attrocities being commited by Japan, such as thousands of vivisections of living men, women, children, and babies intentionally infected with the most horrible diseases (read about Unit 731 sometime), etc., is just like a woman putting herself in a position to be raped because she was riding in a car with a man she wasn't married to. I can't believe I didn't see the similarities.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
How do women and children deserve to be nuked?


And one last off topic point in my defense against your ridiculous comment, if you go back and read through my various posts, you will see that I am against any innocent people being nuked or killed by any other means. My point was that the U.S. didn't just decide to bomb Japan for the hell of it, and that the U.S. is not the only country to have killed large numbers of innocent civilians. What does it matter if it is two a-bombs, thousands and thousands of regular bombs, or a giant frickin laser beam on the moon? The 'U.S. is the only country to have nuked' crap unfairly makes us look like we were monsters compared to everybody else, which isn't the case, there were and still are plenty of other monsters. ALL war is wrong, ALL rape is wrong, and ALL cultures that take basic human rights away are wrong.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Topic, Please

While it's certainly not unusual or wrong to explore various facets of a topic, I think we might be drifting a bit too far away from Saudi Arabia here.


At the very least, I ask that we try to tie in our various analogies to the topic in some reasonable fashion, which is:

Saudi gets sentance of 90 lashes for breaking the law

Thanks.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
The lashing don't bother me. If she wants to live in a society that gives lashes for having male friends, she has the right to. More power to her. She broke the law she has chosen to live under. That's separate from the rape issue.


Valhall,
If she is there of her own free will I'd agree. I contend she is a prisoner in a society that is in and of itself a prison. Whether it is through brainwashing as a child or through the threat of beatings or death if she does not accept servitude under Islamic Law. The rape is an extension of that in that she knew that reporting the rape would bring consequences worse than the rape. The rapists knew that the law was actually written to protect them and to stop her from reporting the rape. I would bet it usually works that way. Something out of the ordinary happened or the rape would have never been reported in the first place. That is the reason the law was written this way. To give rapists a way to get away with it at will. The authors of the law most assuredly considered rape to not be a crime because they assigned no value to women. Women are possessions in their minds in the same way a cow is a possession in our Western culture. One only need to read the history of their founder to understand the real purpose behind their laws. Rape and sex with pre-adolescents were clearly a part of his thinking. I'm sure he considered it a God given right and believed women to be no more than livestock.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pokey Oats
I believe more people died in the fire-bombing of Dresden Germany than those that died from Atomic bombs in Japan. In fact, here is a quote:



"You guys burnt the place down, turned it into a single column of flame. More people died there in the firestorm, in that one big flame, than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined." --Kurt Vonnegut, Jr



You do know who bombed Dresden dont you? Ill give you a hint, Germany didnt bomb itself, (except the Reichstagg) and YES, Dresden was a civilian massacre as well. Thanks for reinforcing my point. 2 nukes AND the firebombing of Dresden.



Seriously Bravo, most complex subject matters can't be boiled down into bite size pieces of morality to fit your tastes for personal consumption.



Well now, that is the point I was trying to make on page one of this thread.
People all rushing to judge a sentence by a Saudi court imposed on Saudi citizens.
People should be more concerned about whats happening here, now, not what happened over there, last week.
I agree, most complex subject matters (foreign cultures included) cant be boiled down.
However, most of my world is bite size morsals of morality as you put it. Right and Wrong, black and white. There is very little grey in my life.
Is it ever justified to torture someone?
Is it ever justified to kill civilians?
Is it ever justified to rape?
I can safely say the answer to these three questions is a resounding NO.
What about passing judgement on others?
I see that as wrong too.
I get most of my guidance for the teachings of Jesus, and I try to emulate him.
I come no-where close, but I try.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
I wonder if anyone here realizes the possibility that the people in question most likely had dealings with each other prior to this event. As, such, any detail that is specified, as of yet in this thread, fails to account for the 'causes' that set everyone together there in the first place.


"Most likely" had dealings with each other?

Well, thank you for adding your own bit of "obtuse reasoning" and unfounded assumptions.....

The article conveys no such prior acquaintance between the victim and perpetrators.

The fact of the matter is that anyone stating "If the woman had obeyed the law, then she would not have been raped" is commiting a clear "post hoc" logical fallacy which places the blame on the victim instead of the sick individuals who committed the rape. In my eyes, this blatantly false logic is highly offensive and only a small step from an actual rapist's mentality (who also attempts to blame the victim for the crime).

[edit on 11/6/06 by redmage]



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   
A Matter Of Concern


Originally posted by 11Bravo
People should be more concerned about whats happening here, now, not what happened over there, last week.

Actually, in this thread, people should be concerned about the topic, which is:

Saudi gets sentance of 90 lashes for breaking the law

Let's please focus on that.



Edit to add: I realize the topic is highly emotional in nature, and some harsh words have been exchanged, but the personal attacks must stop.

If anyone following this thread should disagree with an opinion, please do so by explaining why your opinion differs, rather than condemning other members for thinking differently.

Personal commentary is off-topic, disruptive, violates the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use and is antithetical to the goal of Denying Ignorance.

I ask that all members assist in promoting candid, civil and worthwhile topical discussion by resisting the temptation to insult others for holding different points of view.

Thanks.






[edit on 11/6/2006 by Majic]



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by redmage

The fact of the matter is that anyone stating "If the woman had obeyed the law, then she would not have been raped" is commiting a clear "post hoc" logical fallacy which places the blame on the victim instead of the sick individuals who committed the rape. In my eyes, this blatantly false logic is highly offensive and only a small step from an actual rapist's mentality (who also attempts to blame the victim for the crime).


A couple of things here.
No blame is placed in a statement such as "Had I only" or "Had you only"
or 'Had she only' Your logic is the false logic my friend because you read things that arent there.
Blame IS placed in a statement like 'She is far from innocent.' or 'She deserves what she gets'.
Repeatedly throughout this thread I have stated that it is too bad what happend to her, that she didnt deserve any of it, that its a backwards law and so on, and now I have you telling me that my logic is only a small step from an actual rapist?

This article was written and worded to breed hate...hate of foreigners.
All I tried to do was make some of you think about that.
First I was bashed, then I was fined, then I was told my logic is a small step from a rapist, then my opinion of this topic is held up as a shining example of 'off topic'.

So keep hating foreigners....look how wonderful things end up when people do that.
Hate away...things just wont be right until everybody hates somebody.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo

A couple of things here.
No blame is placed in a statement such as "Had I only" or "Had you only"
or 'Had she only' Your logic is the false logic my friend because you read things that arent there.

..

This article was written and worded to breed hate...hate of foreigners.
All I tried to do was make some of you think about that.
First I was bashed, then I was fined, then I was told my logic is a small step from a rapist, then my opinion of this topic is held up as a shining example of 'off topic'.

So keep hating foreigners....look how wonderful things end up when people do that.
Hate away...things just wont be right until everybody hates somebody.



Had she never been born she wouldn't have been raped, ok. looks plausible, doesn't it?

Now, think of a contrived example: someone driving along the highway at 80mph (above limit -> criminal) gets shot at by some wacko and is severely injured.

The results are as follows:

a) the first persn he/she sees is like you and says 'Had you only followed the speed limit then this local redneck wouldn't have felt aggravated and shot you'. imagine saying that to a person dragging along covered in blood and barely alive, while he/she is struggling to get into the ER. how would YOU perceive that statement under the circumstances? as an awkward form of accusation, because you put it as if the shot was invited by speeding (ie. your own fault).

b) due to a twist of fate, the victim's car sports a data recorder for use in accidents, now while the guy/girl is being patched up in hospital, an over-zealous bureaucrat takes a look at the data and finds out about the speeding offense (which would have gone unnoticed hadn't the guy/gal been hit) and sends the the victim a hefty speeding ticket. (wasn't there an amendment about unwarranted search and incrimination....)

in both case, the rape and my contrived example, statements like yours do not make sense, because both events are not causally linked. you might as well say: 'Had you dodged the bullet, you wouldn't have paid that fine', which is of course a true statement but not very useful.

btw, you are wrong about how people want to bash SA, Valhall and many others you've managed to annoy and who you're now implicitly accusing of 'hating foreigners' (sounds too much like a PC catchphrase to me i might add) wanted to know how you could possibly attribute a cause and effect relationship between rape and riding with a stranger, when there is no indication of such a relationship and even the post author agreed that we were talking about seperate issues. afaics, you haven't tried to answer that, you're still trying to dance around this point and i guess you're just trying to talk your way out of your statements, just like any other apologist. wrt WW2: two wrongs don't make a right, this is probably the 4th time i posted that, this time explicitly.


PS: who is hating foreigners? i'm really curious, what about mufits preaching in favor of gang rapists? what about 5000 people cheering said cleric? (source links on p10, btw) i'm asking you directly if certain people are seemingly allowed to hate or not. do your standards apply to everyone? what would you say about how they treat female guest workers in SA (especially if they complain) and if you'd consider that a form of hate. finally, who, iyo, experiences more tolerance: a ME person in the west or a foreigner in the ME? just curious.

[edit on 7-11-2006 by Long Lance]



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Nice title change.
It's still not as reflective of the whole story though.


"Saudi Gang Rape Victim Lashed 90 times for Violating Morality Laws" is more accurate.

or

"Saudi Gang Rape Victim Lashed 90 times for being in a car with a man she wasn't married too" is that too long? It's the most accurate title I can come up with. It's much better then Saudi Women gets 90 lashes for breaking the law.......



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
No blame is placed in a statement such as "Had I only" or "Had you only"
or 'Had she only'.


Incorrect, and I've already clearly explained why.

The statement "If the woman had obeyed the law, then she would not have been raped" is a clear post hoc logical fallacy.

It uses false logic to create an invalid/unproven "cause and effect" relationship where the "cause" is the victims actions. Thus, it places the responsibility/blame for the effect squarely on the victim (who, in this case, is responsible for said "cause").


Originally posted by 11Bravo
So keep hating foreigners....look how wonderful things end up when people do that.
Hate away...things just wont be right until everybody hates somebody.


Your status of being (or not being) "foreign" has absolutely nothing to do with it, so take your loathsome self pity elsewhere.

The only thing I've done is to hold up a mirror to a piece of post hoc false logic which incorrectly blames the victim for being raped.

If you don't like what you see in that mirror then maybe it's time to reassess your stance because, "If the woman had obeyed the law, then..." is no better (or more valid) than someone in the west saying, "If she wouldn't have worn that dress, then..." about a victim here.

[edit on 11/7/06 by redmage]



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 04:49 AM
link   
One more reminder to QUIT IT with the personal bickering and sniping. NOW.

Thank you.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance


PS: who is hating foreigners?

Gee, I dont know where I got that idea...
Maybe here....
"Shows just how blinded by hatred towards women these 'things' are"
...or here
"How again, are they allowed even in the UN with behavior like this?" or this
"what does that say about the perpetrators and their society? is rape a common sport in these regions? from what i've heard this might very well be the case and all these 'laws' are there to prevent victims from complaining. "
Or maybe I got that idea here....
"Rape is wrong to the whole world, well except the Muslim world"

I guess there is not hate on this thread....just more of my faulty logic.
I am through here.
Have a good day.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Gee, I dont know where I got that idea...
Maybe here....
"Shows just how blinded by hatred towards women these 'things' are"
...or here
"How again, are they allowed even in the UN with behavior like this?" or this
"what does that say about the perpetrators and their society? is rape a common sport in these regions? from what i've heard this might very well be the case and all these 'laws' are there to prevent victims from complaining. "
Or maybe I got that idea here....
"Rape is wrong to the whole world, well except the Muslim world"

I guess there is not hate on this thread....just more of my faulty logic.
I am through here.
Have a good day.


good for you, now take a look at the example i gave you on p10, then tell me if that's hate, too, most of the lines you gave above are imho not hateful,, except the one calling people things, of course

UN talk alot about human rights, a club with such (advertised) standards should not allow anything, expulsion being the logical answer here (as opposed to agression). the UN does not live up to these standards, so the point is probably moot.

wrt my question about what it says about their society, well i for one did not answer it directly, but let's just say that cases where all the blame is hooked on rape victims (who are then frequently stoned to death) pretty much validate my point, that this conduct is designed to strike terror into victims' hearts and shut them up for good.As i said already, this squares well with what i've seen elsewhere and it's no joke at all. women are subject to 'forced marriages', which is nothing but an euphemism for institutionalised rape, is it bigotry to ask whether this is a general sign of a violent conduct against women? (note: i don't care who else practices marital slavery, they're just as despicable, this is about ME Islam)

let's try a less politically charged analogy, speed limits are spreading like wildfire (at least in Europe), the official version is that it helps safety, the real version is that it generates revenue and effectively makes an offender out of everyone, which means everyone can be harassed at will, all within the law.

Likewise, Saudi laws mean every woman trying to lead a semi-normal life does so at her own risk, because waiting for a relative to go _anywhere_ essentially means going nowhere. doesn't that help a rapist? if so, laws cannot be viewed out of context, why did they pass such laws in the first place? what does that say about their society? is asking that question tantamount to spreading racial hate and bigotry?

[edit on 7-11-2006 by Long Lance]



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
I guess there is not hate on this thread....just more of my faulty logic.


I'll admit it, I hate pathetic people (in this case, a large majority of insecure men in many fundamental religions) who need to make the lives of other people (in this case, their women) completely miserable in order to make themselves feel powerful, whether they hide behind religious beliefs or not. And they pass those primitive beliefs on to their children to keep the cycle going. I would like to see the human species evolve and for ALL to have a prosperous future, and I hate those who stand in the way of that, either for the sake of money, or religion. Everyday, it seems more and more clear, that there isn't room for cruel and unfair practices on OUR planet, we have every right to stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join