Iran is not guilty but Muslims are.

So, Iran's not guilty of pursuing a nuclear-weapons program, but in Saudi Arabia, Muslims have gang-raped a woman then lashed her.

All reported in the same day, courtesy of CNN (in New Zealand).

And I find W's commentary on both offensive.

I'm American, but I wish I were...French.

F

[EDIT] PLEASE don't mis-interprest this OP as Mr Jackdaw has; it's not anti-Muslim/Iran; it's anti CNN/Whitehouse. The subtlety has been lost on Jackdaw and the people who have mis-understood my loathing of the American media and its allegiance with The White House.


[edited for typography]






[edit on 5/12/07 by Fuggle]

reply to post by Fuggle


Yeay!! no Iran war! no Iran war!no Iran war! no Iran war! Yeay!!

Be cautious in applying rash generalizations as the one you've started this thread on. Such hastiness is characteristic of the ignorance we accuse 'bigots' of having.

A person's creed is not grounds for throwing blame. Have you ever met any muslims? Spoken to them? Allowing them the benefit of a doubt is, for me, natural, because I grew up around muslims -- 40% (at the time) of my native country's population. Fortunately, this perspective has afforded me an opportunity to get to know them, and understand well that they are not all 'evil'. Like any other belief-system, there are believers, and there are zealots. Should a few bad apples destroy the entire bunch?

I understand that the world is currently in a volatile situation, with political conflict around every corner. I also understand that, due to this situation, tempers can (and will) rise. Opinions will flare. Also (since we're on Earth), scapegoats will be barbecued. Amidst the chaos, I urge you to carefully consider your stance on this topic, and consequently the way you phrase your viewpoint in the future.

reply to post by Mr Jackdaw

Sir,
I respect your opinion and your post (I starred it) But the OP brings a question to mind and I think you may be able to answer it.
The OP stated that in Saudi Arabia a country governed by Muslim law.
A woman was gang raped (her and her boyfriend) and the Saudi law gave her lashes as"punishment" for being in public with a man that wasn't her husband. (This was after she was brutally gang raped)

Would you consider this justice as rational or the work of religious zealots?
Are the people that Govern that country and dished out this sentence on this young woman the good or the bad apples?

Respectfully,

Ricky

[edit on 5-12-2007 by Dont Taze Me Bro]

reply to post by Dont Taze Me Bro


Well I’m no expert on Muslim culture but I’ll take a shot in the dark here and say those are the bad apples.

Also, I don’t mean to bust your bubble, but I’m listening to that press conference right now and GW says he believes Iran was dangerous before the Nation Intelligence Estimate and believes Iran is dangerous after the NIE. The reporter asked him if the new intelligence was going to change US policy towards Iran and that was his answer. So don’t get to excited.

reply to post by captainplanet

YGTFFKM!
There is no way he would attack now having this 16 panel report saying there is no threat!
I think he is just posturing to save face. he can't possibly be even contemplating it now.
*crosses fingers*

reply to post by Mr Jackdaw


Mr Jackdaw: you have inverted the meaning of my OP by 180 degrees...and received stars for it.

Perhaps my sense of irony and subtlty are too subtle and I am at fault, but good god, man.

I am condemning The White House and CNN for their propagandist reporting. I am NOT condemning Muslims; I am condemning The White House and CNN.

Yours [Truly shocked],
Fuggle

To try and make my sentiment clearer:

What I find repugnant is that The White House has pressed that Iran is no longer pursuing Nuclear Weapons...

...But simultaneously, they are trying to publish what abhorent creatures Muslims are...

indicting Muslims even worse than before.

In other words: There's no goddamned coincidence that Iran was "cleared of guilt" politically, while accusing them [sentimentally] simultaneously.

Yes?

F



[edit on 5/12/07 by Fuggle]

I am honored that you requested my opinion on this matter (and thank you for starring it )-- but since Justice is open to interpretation, it doesn't matter what I base my opinions on. Remember; Hitler thought he was doing the right thing.

To directly answer your question -- what the woman received was justice according to the laws of her country. Clinton was removed from office according to the laws of this country: an unfair impeachment, according to some interpretations, and an applauded action to others. Is it truly one or the other, for the woman or for Clinton?

I couldn't tell you that.

Sharia Law is a law that is based on Islamic religious text. It is an example of what might have occurred if the US enforced Biblical law from its founding days.
Since I am neither Muslim, theologian, nor mystic, I can't criticize Sharia law (as being just or unjust). Please understand that even if I said, "This woman has been mistreated," there are those who will argue that her judgment was handed to her in accordance with the will of an "Almighty Deity," who dictated those very laws.

Meanwhile, this woman's case is neither new nor particularly shocking. The USA is hardly the citadel of justice and glory, itself. That this country doesn't administer public punishments or beheadings doesn't automatically make it better than anywhere else. In one country, you have a woman getting flogged for being in public with a man that wasn't her spouse. In another country, people are enslaved by a financial and legislative system, which they can do nothing to change or escape. If Iran is unjust, then perhaps there is a subconscious comparison with the US; I don't think such a comparison can (or should) honestly end in an 'A-is-better-than-B' conclusion.

The Government of Iran has served in its legal capacities, if indeed they oversaw the administration of this punishment. You call it 'injustice,' they call it law; you call something 'freedom', they call it 'immorality.' This is why I have advised (and will continue to advise) caution. Opinions are only a matter of perception, and nothing more.

[edit on 12/5/2007 by Mr Jackdaw]

Good god.

That's righteous, but it's the wrong thread.

F

reply to post by Fuggle


I get your meaning now, it did go over my head originally. I gave him a star so sorry, but he still makes good points.

But Bush didn’t even let Iran off the hook politically. He says they are still dangerous because they had a secret nuclear program in the past and what stops them from doing it in the future. He also said he talked to Russia about letting them provide the fuel for Iran’s nuclear plants so Iran can’t use the power plants as an excuse to need the technology. He said they agreed that was a good idea, so I’m not sure I understand his logic in saying they are still a threat even though he already knows of a way to avoid the issue.

I believe my response was a direct response to Dont Taze Me Bro's question. However, we're in agreement; your posts make it quite clear that I'm unwelcome here.

Best of luck; I wish you many happy lunchtimes in the future.

[edit on 12/5/2007 by Mr Jackdaw]

reply to post by Mr Jackdaw


I don’t think he was saying your unwelcome, he was just trying to defend himself because he doesn’t want to look like a bigot.

[edit on 5-12-2007 by captainplanet]

Well, yeah--I don't want to look like a biggot especially since Jackdaw and five (four?) others have mistaken my meaning, thinking that I am a biggot, utterly inverting the sentiment of my original message.

I'm trying to figure out how to close this thread; it's all just gone awry.
F

reply to post by Fuggle


Fuggle, I don't think Jackdaw was the only person who read your op and had his opinion, because I did as well.

If what you meant to do was be critical of the news you were watching you did not phrase your thoughts well enough for that to be clear.

If somebody in your neighborhood raped a person and got away with it, would that make your whole neighborhood bad? Or state, or Country? Things like that happen all the time. So your generalization about a specific country is quite disturbing. I am also editing to add, or race, or religion.

[edit on 5-12-2007 by Enthralled Fan]

reply to post by Fuggle


While I am at it, I also take great offense to your using God in part of a swearword for your nonsensical tirade.

reply to post by Enthralled Fan


Yes--clearly I left too much implied between the lines of my text, and I'm genuinely regretful about that.

Originally posted by Fuggle
I'm American, but I wish I were...French.





[edit on 5/12/07 by Fuggle]

Well,hell, why don't you move to Frenchy France then? Hmmmm...

reply to post by SpeakerofTruth


Okay, I'll move to France in a few minutes--thanks for the suggestion.

F

Bye, bye...