United states government has arrested a Saudi guy because he was Inviting group of people to Islam.
where is that freedom that westerner people are talking about ?
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Obama ! Free Homaidan
I miss you Odie
Obama ! Free Homaidan
erm.....if we are talking about the same guy, that wasnt what he was convicted of
Al-Turki was sentenced to 28 years in prison on twelve felony counts of false imprisonment, unlawful sexual contact, theft and criminal extortion
from what i have read he sexually assulted his Indonesian house maid and imprisioned her
that might be allowable in the Saudi Kingdom but it isnt in the States
Al-Turki was sentenced to 28 years in prison on twelve felony counts of false imprisonment, unlawful sexual contact, theft and criminal extortion
from what i have read he sexually assulted his Indonesian house maid and imprisioned her
that might be allowable in the Saudi Kingdom but it isnt in the States
The dogs philosophy on life. If you cant eat it, hump it or fight it,........ Pee on it and walk away!!
(/)
(-_-)
(")(")
(/)
(-_-)
(")(")
Obama ! Free Homaidan
No Tears for Homaidan Al-Turki
From The Arab News
This may go some way to explain why he was arrested, tried and imprisoned. I'm not familiar with the case other than what I have just read but there seems to be rather a lot on the net about it.
Does that also explain your question about Westerners and their freedoms ?
From The Arab News
This may go some way to explain why he was arrested, tried and imprisoned. I'm not familiar with the case other than what I have just read but there seems to be rather a lot on the net about it.
Does that also explain your question about Westerners and their freedoms ?
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Obama ! Free Homaidan
beowulf;1330305 wrote: erm.....if we are talking about the same guy, that wasnt what he was convicted of
Al-Turki was sentenced to 28 years in prison on twelve felony counts of false imprisonment, unlawful sexual contact, theft and criminal extortion
from what i have read he sexually assulted his Indonesian house maid and imprisioned her
that might be allowable in the Saudi Kingdom but it isnt in the States
Snowfire;1330314 wrote: No Tears for Homaidan Al-Turki
From The Arab News
This may go some way to explain why he was arrested, tried and imprisoned. I'm not familiar with the case other than what I have just read but there seems to be rather a lot on the net about it.
Does that also explain your question about Westerners and their freedoms ?
guys did you see the video that I posted ??? more than two presidential pardon given by the presidents of USA for real terrorists !!
the REAL story still not clear yet but even though I'm not sure if you know the difference between a terrorist and a normal guy !
Al-Turki was sentenced to 28 years in prison on twelve felony counts of false imprisonment, unlawful sexual contact, theft and criminal extortion
from what i have read he sexually assulted his Indonesian house maid and imprisioned her
that might be allowable in the Saudi Kingdom but it isnt in the States
Snowfire;1330314 wrote: No Tears for Homaidan Al-Turki
From The Arab News
This may go some way to explain why he was arrested, tried and imprisoned. I'm not familiar with the case other than what I have just read but there seems to be rather a lot on the net about it.
Does that also explain your question about Westerners and their freedoms ?
guys did you see the video that I posted ??? more than two presidential pardon given by the presidents of USA for real terrorists !!
the REAL story still not clear yet but even though I'm not sure if you know the difference between a terrorist and a normal guy !
I miss you Odie
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Who's the normal guy ? By all means if there is mileage in it, the Arab States should negotiate a return of prisoners, maybe an exchange but don't use emotive videos to persuade us that this "normal guy" is innocent. You have, in other threads, told us how our different cultures deal with our respective criminals. I am led to believe that his lawyers believed that the Indonesian maid should not be believed over a "respectable" Muslim man. That is not the law in the United States. A jury found him guilty and imprisoned for the appropriate period.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Hi everyone, I read that all the accusations were false, and the Indonesian house maid, and this comes as consequences of the 11th September events.
and I want to point that in Islam a man who commits unlawful sexual contact is punished in way more firmly than any other religion.
and a man who sexually assaults a woman is never called normal guy and i agree with whom consider him not normal because he is an innocent man who is treated as guilty man and his only guilt is being Muslim.
and I want to point that in Islam a man who commits unlawful sexual contact is punished in way more firmly than any other religion.
and a man who sexually assaults a woman is never called normal guy and i agree with whom consider him not normal because he is an innocent man who is treated as guilty man and his only guilt is being Muslim.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Mashail;1330391 wrote: Hi everyone, I read that all the accusations were false, and the Indonesian house maid, and this comes as consequences of the 11th September events.
and I want to point that in Islam a man who commits unlawful sexual contact is punished in way more firmly than any other religion.
and a man who sexually assaults a woman is never called normal guy and i agree with whom consider him not normal because he is an innocent man who is treated as guilty man and his only guilt is being Muslim.
Without evidence this is opinion and, as a first time poster with not history to judge by, I fear we must take the opinion of a duly convened court of justice reviewing all the presented evidence over your unsupported viewpoint.
and I want to point that in Islam a man who commits unlawful sexual contact is punished in way more firmly than any other religion.
and a man who sexually assaults a woman is never called normal guy and i agree with whom consider him not normal because he is an innocent man who is treated as guilty man and his only guilt is being Muslim.
Without evidence this is opinion and, as a first time poster with not history to judge by, I fear we must take the opinion of a duly convened court of justice reviewing all the presented evidence over your unsupported viewpoint.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
I watched a video which tells that he is not guilty because the house keeper was lying on the judges and he was treated in very bad way and his wife was insulted.. I repeat, we do not judge him before we know the complete evidence and all stuff otherwise he is normal guy and heal. we need clear and trusted Information to believe.
I miss you Odie
Obama ! Free Homaidan
M.A.S;1330443 wrote: I watched a video which tells that he is not guilty because the house keeper was lying on the judges and he was treated in very bad way and his wife was insulted.. I repeat, we do not judge him before we know the complete evidence and all stuff otherwise he is normal guy and heal. we need clear and trusted Information to believe.
Sorry. the Judge has heard the complete evidence and the jury has found him guilty - that the rumour in his homecountry is that the housekeeper was lying is immaterial, the evidence on the ground was that he was lying and that the housekeeper was telling the truth and, without proof to the contrary, is all we have to go on.
The considered verdict of those who were there and had the evidence presented to them carries more weight than the rumours of those who don't want to believe it.
Sorry. the Judge has heard the complete evidence and the jury has found him guilty - that the rumour in his homecountry is that the housekeeper was lying is immaterial, the evidence on the ground was that he was lying and that the housekeeper was telling the truth and, without proof to the contrary, is all we have to go on.
The considered verdict of those who were there and had the evidence presented to them carries more weight than the rumours of those who don't want to believe it.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
MAS. Did you read the link I posted to The Arab News ? Here it is again...... No Tears for Homaidan Al-Turki With a quote from the reporter , Rasheed Abou-Alsamh
According to Suthers in a television interview with the Denver affiliate of CBS News (http://cbs4denver.com/topstories/local_ ... 21646.html), a brother of Al-Turki told him in Riyadh that the family could not understand how a US jury could give credibility to the testimony of an Indonesian maid.
That, in my mind, points to the heart of the whole uproar in Saudi Arabia about Al-Turki’s case: How could anyone take the word of a mere female (and a maid at that!), over the word of a supposedly religious, male Saudi? It seems that unfortunately the most basic tenets of justice and human rights escape a significant portion of our population.
A top Saudi official told me that he believed Al-Turki was guilty of abusing his maid, and that the Saudi government was only helping him because he was a Saudi citizen and not because they necessarily sympathized with him.
This is from an Arab reporter in The Arab News.
According to Suthers in a television interview with the Denver affiliate of CBS News (http://cbs4denver.com/topstories/local_ ... 21646.html), a brother of Al-Turki told him in Riyadh that the family could not understand how a US jury could give credibility to the testimony of an Indonesian maid.
That, in my mind, points to the heart of the whole uproar in Saudi Arabia about Al-Turki’s case: How could anyone take the word of a mere female (and a maid at that!), over the word of a supposedly religious, male Saudi? It seems that unfortunately the most basic tenets of justice and human rights escape a significant portion of our population.
A top Saudi official told me that he believed Al-Turki was guilty of abusing his maid, and that the Saudi government was only helping him because he was a Saudi citizen and not because they necessarily sympathized with him.
This is from an Arab reporter in The Arab News.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Obama ! Free Homaidan
M.A.S;1330277 wrote: United states government has arrested a Saudi guy because he was Inviting group of people to Islam.
where is that freedom that westerner people are talking about ?
This is an interesting example of looking out at other cultures and only seeing a reflection of your own. It happens everywhere. Americans, for example, militarized to an insane extent after World War Two by looking into the mirror and believing they saw the Soviet Union hell-bent on world domination and wielding scary hardware. They saw their own inner nature, that's all. After the collapse of the Soviet Union they believed they saw governments abroad bankrolling terror strikes across the world. Again it was just a reflection of the acts of their own intelligence services ever since World War Two which did exactly that. The inner nature of US society scared Americans into fearing their own actions played back to them.
I have no doubt at all that converting Christians to Muslims is legal and unstoppable in any Western society. Muslims may well find themselves at a disadvantage before a jury here these days but that's just an aspect of decades of mass propaganda centred around Palestine and the entrenchment of Zionism followed by the regrettable behaviour of a couple of dozen Saudi Arabians on September 11th 2001. The conversion question is another mirror. The Saudi Arabian constitution and legislation makes conversion within your country from Muslim to Christian a crime subject to the death penalty for both the evangelist and the convert. That's the starting-point for your fears with regard to "arrested a Saudi guy because he was Inviting group of people to Islam". It may have brought the chap to the attention of the US police in the first place, I can't tell, but it's certainly not what he was convicted of. It's not illegal there. But the mirror circumstance currently exists where you live.
where is that freedom that westerner people are talking about ?
This is an interesting example of looking out at other cultures and only seeing a reflection of your own. It happens everywhere. Americans, for example, militarized to an insane extent after World War Two by looking into the mirror and believing they saw the Soviet Union hell-bent on world domination and wielding scary hardware. They saw their own inner nature, that's all. After the collapse of the Soviet Union they believed they saw governments abroad bankrolling terror strikes across the world. Again it was just a reflection of the acts of their own intelligence services ever since World War Two which did exactly that. The inner nature of US society scared Americans into fearing their own actions played back to them.
I have no doubt at all that converting Christians to Muslims is legal and unstoppable in any Western society. Muslims may well find themselves at a disadvantage before a jury here these days but that's just an aspect of decades of mass propaganda centred around Palestine and the entrenchment of Zionism followed by the regrettable behaviour of a couple of dozen Saudi Arabians on September 11th 2001. The conversion question is another mirror. The Saudi Arabian constitution and legislation makes conversion within your country from Muslim to Christian a crime subject to the death penalty for both the evangelist and the convert. That's the starting-point for your fears with regard to "arrested a Saudi guy because he was Inviting group of people to Islam". It may have brought the chap to the attention of the US police in the first place, I can't tell, but it's certainly not what he was convicted of. It's not illegal there. But the mirror circumstance currently exists where you live.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
OK,
* In 1961, the USA president John Kennedy granted a presidential pardon in the favor of Hank Greenspan the head of an arms smuggling network to Israel.
* In 1989, the USA president George H.W Bush granted a presidential pardon in the favor of Orland Bosch accused for bombing a civilian airplane.
* In 2000, the USA president Bill Clinton granted a presidential pardon In the favor of Al-Schwimmer guilty of organizing an arm network to Israel.
* In 2008, the USA president Georg H.W Bush granted a presidential pardon In the favor of 19 convicts guilty of using their personal trade to help Israel.
all what will be written based on my personal experience In life and politics:
since we have a country which give a presidential pardons and released criminals and terrorists, It should release a guy which falsely accused by a crime that he did not do..
well, I can conclude that USA is a terrorist country !!! oh yeah It is..
I believe that any one who releases a terrorist who tries to blow up a plane is a terrorist In 1989.
* In 1961, the USA president John Kennedy granted a presidential pardon in the favor of Hank Greenspan the head of an arms smuggling network to Israel.
* In 1989, the USA president George H.W Bush granted a presidential pardon in the favor of Orland Bosch accused for bombing a civilian airplane.
* In 2000, the USA president Bill Clinton granted a presidential pardon In the favor of Al-Schwimmer guilty of organizing an arm network to Israel.
* In 2008, the USA president Georg H.W Bush granted a presidential pardon In the favor of 19 convicts guilty of using their personal trade to help Israel.
all what will be written based on my personal experience In life and politics:
since we have a country which give a presidential pardons and released criminals and terrorists, It should release a guy which falsely accused by a crime that he did not do..
well, I can conclude that USA is a terrorist country !!! oh yeah It is..
I believe that any one who releases a terrorist who tries to blow up a plane is a terrorist In 1989.
I miss you Odie
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Snowfire;1330314 wrote: No Tears for Homaidan Al-Turki
From The Arab News
This may go some way to explain why he was arrested, tried and imprisoned. I'm not familiar with the case other than what I have just read but there seems to be rather a lot on the net about it.
Does that also explain your question about Westerners and their freedoms ?
first of all, I don't trust any thing that shows In newspapers..
a friend told me a bout USA:
Q: What is freedom in America?
Nudity is the freedom for women only.
Freedom of expression for artists.
Freedom of expression of sex and sophistication in ways that
The freedom of eating and clothing.
Has no freedom of religion in America.
Lying media profane Jews.
This is the reality in America.
From The Arab News
This may go some way to explain why he was arrested, tried and imprisoned. I'm not familiar with the case other than what I have just read but there seems to be rather a lot on the net about it.
Does that also explain your question about Westerners and their freedoms ?
first of all, I don't trust any thing that shows In newspapers..
a friend told me a bout USA:
Q: What is freedom in America?
Nudity is the freedom for women only.
Freedom of expression for artists.
Freedom of expression of sex and sophistication in ways that
The freedom of eating and clothing.
Has no freedom of religion in America.
Lying media profane Jews.
This is the reality in America.
I miss you Odie
Obama ! Free Homaidan
I am reminded of the old saying by R. Kipling "East is East and West is West and never the Twain Shall Meet" World events today seem to bear this out.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
M.A.S;1330664 wrote: OK,
* In 1961, the USA president John Kennedy granted a presidential pardon in the favor of Hank Greenspan the head of an arms smuggling network to Israel.
* In 1989, the USA president George H.W Bush granted a presidential pardon in the favor of Orland Bosch accused for bombing a civilian airplane.
* In 2000, the USA president Bill Clinton granted a presidential pardon In the favor of Al-Schwimmer guilty of organizing an arm network to Israel.
* In 2008, the USA president Georg H.W Bush granted a presidential pardon In the favor of 19 convicts guilty of using their personal trade to help Israel.
all what will be written based on my personal experience In life and politics:
since we have a country which give a presidential pardons and released criminals and terrorists, It should release a guy which falsely accused by a crime that he did not do..
well, I can conclude that USA is a terrorist country !!! oh yeah It is..
I believe that any one who releases a terrorist who tries to blow up a plane is a terrorist In 1989.
Two totally separate and unconnected threads here.
You will find many who agree that the US is pro-Israeli to an excessive degree - even some that feel that US secret operations amount to state terrorism.
That has no bearing on this case, tried in a court of law. You have presented no evidence that he was falsely accused and that he did not commit the crime and you have given no motive for a US court to persecute one Muslim foreign national in order to benefit another Muslim foreign national - he the maid been an Israeli then the side issue that you've introduced would have some relevance but this is not the case.
So, what causes you to believe that the Judge and Jury, having heard all of the evidence, have falsely found Homaidan guilty - apart from the fact that he's a Saudi and Saudi's wouldn't do a thing like that?
* In 1961, the USA president John Kennedy granted a presidential pardon in the favor of Hank Greenspan the head of an arms smuggling network to Israel.
* In 1989, the USA president George H.W Bush granted a presidential pardon in the favor of Orland Bosch accused for bombing a civilian airplane.
* In 2000, the USA president Bill Clinton granted a presidential pardon In the favor of Al-Schwimmer guilty of organizing an arm network to Israel.
* In 2008, the USA president Georg H.W Bush granted a presidential pardon In the favor of 19 convicts guilty of using their personal trade to help Israel.
all what will be written based on my personal experience In life and politics:
since we have a country which give a presidential pardons and released criminals and terrorists, It should release a guy which falsely accused by a crime that he did not do..
well, I can conclude that USA is a terrorist country !!! oh yeah It is..
I believe that any one who releases a terrorist who tries to blow up a plane is a terrorist In 1989.
Two totally separate and unconnected threads here.
You will find many who agree that the US is pro-Israeli to an excessive degree - even some that feel that US secret operations amount to state terrorism.
That has no bearing on this case, tried in a court of law. You have presented no evidence that he was falsely accused and that he did not commit the crime and you have given no motive for a US court to persecute one Muslim foreign national in order to benefit another Muslim foreign national - he the maid been an Israeli then the side issue that you've introduced would have some relevance but this is not the case.
So, what causes you to believe that the Judge and Jury, having heard all of the evidence, have falsely found Homaidan guilty - apart from the fact that he's a Saudi and Saudi's wouldn't do a thing like that?
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Well at least this guy won't be burned and stoned to death:
Fee Sakinah Mohammadi Astiani: Who and what religion in this time can actually justify stoning a woman to death?
Animals!
UPDATE: Iran - Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani still faces death sentence while Brazil makes formal offer of asylum / Issues and Analysis / Issues and Analysis / Home - AWID
Fee Sakinah Mohammadi Astiani: Who and what religion in this time can actually justify stoning a woman to death?
Animals!
UPDATE: Iran - Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani still faces death sentence while Brazil makes formal offer of asylum / Issues and Analysis / Issues and Analysis / Home - AWID
Obama ! Free Homaidan
M.A.S;1330664 wrote: since we have a country which give a presidential pardons and released criminals and terrorists, It should release a guy which falsely accused by a crime that he did not do..Perhaps the difference is that in Saudi Arabia Mr Homaidan could not have been tried and convicted for what he was convicted of in the USA. The laws are different. The accusation brought by the woman would not have been accepted in Saudi Arabia because too few witnesses existed for a court to accept the charge. Even if the charge had been legitimate in a Saudi court, the USA has no provision for the victim to accept compensation from the accused. You're quite right that, from the perspective of a Saudi court, no crime was committed.
What you said in a different thread applies here:M.A.S;1327900 wrote: suppose I'm from U.K and I'm going to U.S.A for business, automatically once I get In Unites States every action that I do is under their law and I should read their laws before I do anything that I'm not sure about..
similarly, those who does not want to be under Islamic law they just can go out side the country and get another nationality..
every single human being has a brain and can use It..When in America obey American law, just as when a Western visitor is in Saudi Arabia you demand that he obeys Saudi law.
I'm all in favour of different countries having different laws and different legal systems. If something's a crime in one country but not in another then what has to change is the behaviour of the visitor. At the moment I have a medication in my pocket based on morphine, for example. If I flew into Dubai with it I'd go to jail, but here I can use it freely so long as I have the permission of a doctor.
Under Saudi law, what Mr Homaidan was found to have done would not have resulted in a trial much less a guilty verdict. In the USA it did, because a US court may accept the uncorroborated testimony of a single person. Perhaps that's why you think he's innocent, because he wasn't tried to the same standard as a Saudi court. I don't think you can reasonably argue that the man didn't, for example, withhold the housemaid's income or restrict her movements, because he admitted both of those things. He said it was what he'd have been expected to do in Saudi Arabia. It's still a crime in the USA though.
What you said in a different thread applies here:M.A.S;1327900 wrote: suppose I'm from U.K and I'm going to U.S.A for business, automatically once I get In Unites States every action that I do is under their law and I should read their laws before I do anything that I'm not sure about..
similarly, those who does not want to be under Islamic law they just can go out side the country and get another nationality..
every single human being has a brain and can use It..When in America obey American law, just as when a Western visitor is in Saudi Arabia you demand that he obeys Saudi law.
I'm all in favour of different countries having different laws and different legal systems. If something's a crime in one country but not in another then what has to change is the behaviour of the visitor. At the moment I have a medication in my pocket based on morphine, for example. If I flew into Dubai with it I'd go to jail, but here I can use it freely so long as I have the permission of a doctor.
Under Saudi law, what Mr Homaidan was found to have done would not have resulted in a trial much less a guilty verdict. In the USA it did, because a US court may accept the uncorroborated testimony of a single person. Perhaps that's why you think he's innocent, because he wasn't tried to the same standard as a Saudi court. I don't think you can reasonably argue that the man didn't, for example, withhold the housemaid's income or restrict her movements, because he admitted both of those things. He said it was what he'd have been expected to do in Saudi Arabia. It's still a crime in the USA though.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
You will find many who agree that the US is pro-Israeli to an excessive degree - even some that feel that US secret operations amount to state terrorism.
that's what I wanted you to see..
well, USA is a terrorist country, then It has Not justice no human being rights..
I miss you Odie
Obama ! Free Homaidan
mikeinie;1330683 wrote: Well at least this guy won't be burned and stoned to death:
Fee Sakinah Mohammadi Astiani: Who and what religion in this time can actually justify stoning a woman to death?
Animals!
UPDATE: Iran - Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani still faces death sentence while Brazil makes formal offer of asylum / Issues and Analysis / Issues and Analysis / Home - AWID
You speak of Human rights? As that is so important to you then I am sure that you will join the protest and write to the Iran embassy to fight for the human rights of this poor woman who will be stoned to death.
Ironic isn't it, here is the male atheist protesting to save a Muslim woman. Kind of supports my whole argument about religion doesn’t it?
Fee Sakinah Mohammadi Astiani: Who and what religion in this time can actually justify stoning a woman to death?
Animals!
UPDATE: Iran - Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani still faces death sentence while Brazil makes formal offer of asylum / Issues and Analysis / Issues and Analysis / Home - AWID
You speak of Human rights? As that is so important to you then I am sure that you will join the protest and write to the Iran embassy to fight for the human rights of this poor woman who will be stoned to death.
Ironic isn't it, here is the male atheist protesting to save a Muslim woman. Kind of supports my whole argument about religion doesn’t it?
Obama ! Free Homaidan
At least in the states he got a chance to defend himself and it was a jury that found him guilty after hearing all the evidence.
I watched a video which tells that he is not guilty because the house keeper was lying on the judges and he was treated in very bad way and his wife was insulted.. I repeat, we do not judge him before we know the complete evidence and all stuff otherwise he is normal guy and heal. we need clear and trusted Information to believe.
The prosecution have to prove that he committed the crime and one persons word against another's is not enough.There must have been other evidence as his word against hers would not have been sufficient for him to even be brought to trial in the first place. I dare say you can find a court transcript if you look for one.
I watched a video which tells that he is not guilty because the house keeper was lying on the judges and he was treated in very bad way and his wife was insulted.. I repeat, we do not judge him before we know the complete evidence and all stuff otherwise he is normal guy and heal. we need clear and trusted Information to believe.
The prosecution have to prove that he committed the crime and one persons word against another's is not enough.There must have been other evidence as his word against hers would not have been sufficient for him to even be brought to trial in the first place. I dare say you can find a court transcript if you look for one.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
I think that if this your best offering of american injustice - I'll sleep fine tonight.
Unfortunately there are probably some valid cases out there that don't get the hoopla that this fella is.
Unfortunately there are probably some valid cases out there that don't get the hoopla that this fella is.
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Obama ! Free Homaidan
spot;1330688 wrote:
Under Saudi law, what Mr Homaidan was found to have done would not have resulted in a trial much less a guilty verdict.
Perhaps that's why you think he's innocent, because he wasn't tried to the same standard as a Saudi court. I don't think you can reasonably argue that the man didn't, for example, withhold the housemaid's income or restrict her movements, because he admitted both of those things. He said it was what he'd have been expected to do in Saudi Arabia. .
Suadi Law & Saudi justice: Take a testimony from a woman????:
Stoning of a woman in Suadi Arabia: This is their human rights...
Attached files
Under Saudi law, what Mr Homaidan was found to have done would not have resulted in a trial much less a guilty verdict.
Perhaps that's why you think he's innocent, because he wasn't tried to the same standard as a Saudi court. I don't think you can reasonably argue that the man didn't, for example, withhold the housemaid's income or restrict her movements, because he admitted both of those things. He said it was what he'd have been expected to do in Saudi Arabia. .
Suadi Law & Saudi justice: Take a testimony from a woman????:
Stoning of a woman in Suadi Arabia: This is their human rights...
Attached files
Obama ! Free Homaidan
M.A.S;1330715 wrote: that's what I wanted you to see..
well, USA is a terrorist country, then It has Not justice no human being rights..
How does it follow that, because some people feel that US secret operations amount to state terrorism, this particular person is innocent of the crime he was found guilty of by a US court?
The first is a matter of minority opinion, the guilty verdict is a matter of fact arrived at after a full review of the available evidence in light of the applicable laws.
You might as well say that, because some people feel that Saudi law amounts to terrorism against women, no verdict reached in a Saudi court should be upheld - exactly the same logic and just as ridiculous a statement.
well, USA is a terrorist country, then It has Not justice no human being rights..
How does it follow that, because some people feel that US secret operations amount to state terrorism, this particular person is innocent of the crime he was found guilty of by a US court?
The first is a matter of minority opinion, the guilty verdict is a matter of fact arrived at after a full review of the available evidence in light of the applicable laws.
You might as well say that, because some people feel that Saudi law amounts to terrorism against women, no verdict reached in a Saudi court should be upheld - exactly the same logic and just as ridiculous a statement.
-
Kathy Ellen
- Posts: 10569
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm
Obama ! Free Homaidan
M.A.S;1330665 wrote: first of all, I don't trust any thing that shows In newspapers..
a friend told me a bout USA:
Q: What is freedom in America?
Nudity is the freedom for women only.
Freedom of expression for artists.
Freedom of expression of sex and sophistication in ways that
The freedom of eating and clothing.
Has no freedom of religion in America.
Lying media profane Jews.
This is the reality in America
THIS is the reality in America MAS....
Thankfully we do have freedoms in America. Men and women have the freedom to walk around naked in the privacy of their home or perhaps on a 'nude' beach. We can have all the sex that we want with whomever we want..... eat, drink and be merry...as long as it's consensual, age appropriate and done in appropriate places.
Thankfully, I'm a free woman in America who can wander about freely, meeting and greeting people and not worrying about someone controlling me and curtailing my every thought and movement.
We have the right to worship or not worship as we please.
We don't stone our women because they may have had sex outside of their marriage. That's what courts are for....husbands and wives can work out their issue through the court system which are usually fair.
You have absolutely no idea how difficult it is for me to view those poor women being stoned to death....gives me nightmares and makes me cry for them because they did not deserve to die in such a horrific manner.
a friend told me a bout USA:
Q: What is freedom in America?
Nudity is the freedom for women only.
Freedom of expression for artists.
Freedom of expression of sex and sophistication in ways that
The freedom of eating and clothing.
Has no freedom of religion in America.
Lying media profane Jews.
This is the reality in America
THIS is the reality in America MAS....
Thankfully we do have freedoms in America. Men and women have the freedom to walk around naked in the privacy of their home or perhaps on a 'nude' beach. We can have all the sex that we want with whomever we want..... eat, drink and be merry...as long as it's consensual, age appropriate and done in appropriate places.
Thankfully, I'm a free woman in America who can wander about freely, meeting and greeting people and not worrying about someone controlling me and curtailing my every thought and movement.
We have the right to worship or not worship as we please.
We don't stone our women because they may have had sex outside of their marriage. That's what courts are for....husbands and wives can work out their issue through the court system which are usually fair.
You have absolutely no idea how difficult it is for me to view those poor women being stoned to death....gives me nightmares and makes me cry for them because they did not deserve to die in such a horrific manner.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Kathy Ellen;1330840 wrote: You have absolutely no idea how difficult it is for me to view those poor women being stoned to death....gives me nightmares and makes me cry for them because they did not deserve to die in such a horrific manner.Does it not bother you that much of the rest of the world has an equally deep-rooted visceral reaction to US states exercising their own death penalty, Kathy? Why should the typical US citizen's response to Saudi justice count for more than our response to US justice? More to the point, why should a Saudi citizen reconsider his position regarding Saudi sentencing when he sees so many US citizens joyfully exulting in the barbaric execution of their own criminals? And don't say it's not joyful exulting - FG over the years has produced far too many examples of just that for it to be denied.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Kathy Ellen
- Posts: 10569
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm
Obama ! Free Homaidan
spot;1330844 wrote: Does it not bother you that much of the rest of the world has an equally deep-rooted visceral reaction to US states exercising their own death penalty, Kathy? Why should the typical US citizen's response to Saudi justice count for more than our response to US justice? More to the point, why should a Saudi citizen reconsider his position regarding Saudi sentencing when he sees so many US citizens joyfully exulting in the barbaric execution of their own criminals? And don't say it's not joyful exulting - FG over the years has produced far too many examples of just that for it to be denied.
I hate all form of barbaric killings Spot whether they're in the States or in any part of the world. We have evil everywhere...
I hate war and wish that every country could bring all of their military forces home. I'm not happy that all of our loved ones are fighting a fruitless war...It's barbaric to me. We should be home protecting our country and making our country safe.
I don't condone the evils of my country as I don't condone the evils of any country.
I can only speak for myself, and I do not feel joyful when people are hurt and suffering from war and oppression.
I hate all form of barbaric killings Spot whether they're in the States or in any part of the world. We have evil everywhere...
I hate war and wish that every country could bring all of their military forces home. I'm not happy that all of our loved ones are fighting a fruitless war...It's barbaric to me. We should be home protecting our country and making our country safe.
I don't condone the evils of my country as I don't condone the evils of any country.
I can only speak for myself, and I do not feel joyful when people are hurt and suffering from war and oppression.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Bryn Mawr;1330788 wrote: in light of the applicable laws.
"applicable laws?" What do you say when the "laws" are a barbaric insult to civilization? I could have a country where it is the law to give people the death penalty for parking tickets or slow boiling in oil for littering, but that doesn't make my laws just or civilized.
You might as well say that, because some people feel that Saudi law amounts to terrorism against women, no verdict reached in a Saudi court should be upheld - exactly the same logic and just as ridiculous a statement.
When laws are so draconian as to cross the lines of moral human behavior, then yes, they can be considered unjust and wrong.
"applicable laws?" What do you say when the "laws" are a barbaric insult to civilization? I could have a country where it is the law to give people the death penalty for parking tickets or slow boiling in oil for littering, but that doesn't make my laws just or civilized.
You might as well say that, because some people feel that Saudi law amounts to terrorism against women, no verdict reached in a Saudi court should be upheld - exactly the same logic and just as ridiculous a statement.
When laws are so draconian as to cross the lines of moral human behavior, then yes, they can be considered unjust and wrong.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
spot;1330844 wrote: barbaric execution
There is a world of difference between giving someone an injection that peacefully and painlessly puts them to sleep and bashing their heads in with multiple strikes of a rock. And yes, that makes all the difference.
There is a world of difference between giving someone an injection that peacefully and painlessly puts them to sleep and bashing their heads in with multiple strikes of a rock. And yes, that makes all the difference.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Saint_;1330863 wrote: "applicable laws?" What do you say when the "laws" are a barbaric insult to civilization? I could have a country where it is the law to give people the death penalty for parking tickets or slow boiling in oil for littering, but that doesn't make my laws just or civilized.
When laws are so draconian as to cross the lines of moral human behavior, then yes, they can be considered unjust and wrong.
Generally I say judge not lets ye be judged - you might not like how another country runs their affairs but you have no right to dictate to them how they do so.
Tell me, how do Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib relate to civilised justice and behaviour?
When laws are so draconian as to cross the lines of moral human behavior, then yes, they can be considered unjust and wrong.
Generally I say judge not lets ye be judged - you might not like how another country runs their affairs but you have no right to dictate to them how they do so.
Tell me, how do Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib relate to civilised justice and behaviour?
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Bryn Mawr;1330887 wrote: Generally I say judge not lets ye be judged - you might not like how another country runs their affairs but you have no right to dictate to them how they do so.
Tell me, how do Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib relate to civilised justice and behaviour?
Easy thing to say in the comfort of your own living room in a country where your rights are protected and you are a free man. Also a great excuse not getting involved in fighting against injustice.
Complacency is dangerous.
Remember, freedom is hard fought for and easily lost.
Tell me, how do Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib relate to civilised justice and behaviour?
Easy thing to say in the comfort of your own living room in a country where your rights are protected and you are a free man. Also a great excuse not getting involved in fighting against injustice.
Complacency is dangerous.
Remember, freedom is hard fought for and easily lost.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
mikeinie;1330908 wrote:
Remember, freedom is hard fought for and easily lost.
could you tell that to the indonesian maid please..........she was imprisoned for 4 years and repeatedly sexually abused.......she lost her 'freedom'
as far as im concerned this scumbag can rot in jail forever
Remember, freedom is hard fought for and easily lost.
could you tell that to the indonesian maid please..........she was imprisoned for 4 years and repeatedly sexually abused.......she lost her 'freedom'
as far as im concerned this scumbag can rot in jail forever
The dogs philosophy on life. If you cant eat it, hump it or fight it,........ Pee on it and walk away!!
(/)
(-_-)
(")(")
(/)
(-_-)
(")(")
Obama ! Free Homaidan
mikeinie;1330908 wrote: Easy thing to say in the comfort of your own living room in a country where your rights are protected and you are a free man. Also a great excuse not getting involved in fighting against injustice.
Complacency is dangerous.
Remember, freedom is hard fought for and easily lost.
Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib are the injustice and I'll fight it wherever and whenever I can.
Freedom is not freedom where it includes detention without trial, torture and abuses of the very standards America was founded to uphold - the ends *never* justify the means.
Complacency is dangerous.
Remember, freedom is hard fought for and easily lost.
Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib are the injustice and I'll fight it wherever and whenever I can.
Freedom is not freedom where it includes detention without trial, torture and abuses of the very standards America was founded to uphold - the ends *never* justify the means.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Bryn Mawr;1330918 wrote: Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib are the injustice and I'll fight it wherever and whenever I can.
Freedom is not freedom where it includes detention without trial, torture and abuses of the very standards America was founded to uphold - the ends *never* justify the means.
I don't disagree, but here is a question, at what price are you willing to sacrifice your freedom?
Are you willing to protect those who want to take away you rights? And who do not care about your freedom?
At what point do you start fighting to save your freedom?
Or do you let people slowing chip away at it and do nothing so that you do not offend them?
These are tough questions, but there are people out there to whom you are their enemy.
Freedom is not freedom where it includes detention without trial, torture and abuses of the very standards America was founded to uphold - the ends *never* justify the means.
I don't disagree, but here is a question, at what price are you willing to sacrifice your freedom?
Are you willing to protect those who want to take away you rights? And who do not care about your freedom?
At what point do you start fighting to save your freedom?
Or do you let people slowing chip away at it and do nothing so that you do not offend them?
These are tough questions, but there are people out there to whom you are their enemy.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
mikeinie;1330932 wrote: These are tough questions, but there are people out there to whom you are their enemy.All the points you raise are far more applicable to Western governments than to Islamic nations or so-called "terrorists", though. The threats to my freedom do not originate in Riyadh, Baghdad, Tehran, Damascus or Kabul, they originate in Westminster and Washington.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Posted by saint
There is a world of difference between giving someone an injection that peacefully and painlessly puts them to sleep and bashing their heads in with multiple strikes of a rock. And yes, that makes all the difference.
Both methods are judicial execution, both are designed to terrorise and deter other persons thinking of committing the same crime. Both methods fail as a deterrent. Both cannot be undone if a mistake is made, both are usually carried out with crowds baying for blood and vengeance. Apart from a debate about whether the actual crime warrants a death penalty the actual crime I suppose killing someone gently and with consideration is more humane.
mikeinie;1330932 wrote: I don't disagree, but here is a question, at what price are you willing to sacrifice your freedom?
Are you willing to protect those who want to take away you rights? And who do not care about your freedom?
At what point do you start fighting to save your freedom?
Or do you let people slowing chip away at it and do nothing so that you do not offend them?
These are tough questions, but there are people out there to whom you are their enemy.
All laws in western society are designed to protect the indivudual from the abuse of power from the state. To allow your government the power of arbitrary arrest without trial is to allow them too much power. It is not the rights of criminals that are the issue it is your rights that are at risk. Many other countries counter terrorism without suspending habeous corpus.
But at least in the states you can still criticise the government and call politicians names if you want - even draw cartoons with inpunity- and that's more than you can do in saudi arabia.
There is a world of difference between giving someone an injection that peacefully and painlessly puts them to sleep and bashing their heads in with multiple strikes of a rock. And yes, that makes all the difference.
Both methods are judicial execution, both are designed to terrorise and deter other persons thinking of committing the same crime. Both methods fail as a deterrent. Both cannot be undone if a mistake is made, both are usually carried out with crowds baying for blood and vengeance. Apart from a debate about whether the actual crime warrants a death penalty the actual crime I suppose killing someone gently and with consideration is more humane.
mikeinie;1330932 wrote: I don't disagree, but here is a question, at what price are you willing to sacrifice your freedom?
Are you willing to protect those who want to take away you rights? And who do not care about your freedom?
At what point do you start fighting to save your freedom?
Or do you let people slowing chip away at it and do nothing so that you do not offend them?
These are tough questions, but there are people out there to whom you are their enemy.
All laws in western society are designed to protect the indivudual from the abuse of power from the state. To allow your government the power of arbitrary arrest without trial is to allow them too much power. It is not the rights of criminals that are the issue it is your rights that are at risk. Many other countries counter terrorism without suspending habeous corpus.
But at least in the states you can still criticise the government and call politicians names if you want - even draw cartoons with inpunity- and that's more than you can do in saudi arabia.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
gmc;1330941 wrote: Posted by saint
All laws in western society are designed to protect the indivudual from the abuse of power from the state. To allow your government the power of arbitrary arrest without trial is to allow them too much power. It is not the rights of criminals that are the issue it is your rights that are at risk. Many other countries counter terrorism without suspending habeous corpus.
Well it always comes down to the philosophical debate: the rights of the individual vs the rights of the community.
When do individual rights start diminishing the rights of the community?
And when to the rights of the community start diminishing the rights of the individual?
Some would argue that these day the rights of the individual has gone too far and the community is now starting to decay in self absorbed people only interested in how much they can consume from the community.
Others would argue that the attempt to move back to the rights of the community threatens the rights of the individual.
But what people forget is that a ‘right’ is not really a ‘right’. It is a privilege that was fought for and try standing up in front of someone and say ‘I have my rights’ in a country where you have no rights. You would simply disappear and many people do in these countries.
It is a balance that needs to be found. I know that to keep the rights that I have, I also have to protect the community in which I live.
If the community is lost, then I could end up losing my rights to the new community that will evolve to replace the old one.
All laws in western society are designed to protect the indivudual from the abuse of power from the state. To allow your government the power of arbitrary arrest without trial is to allow them too much power. It is not the rights of criminals that are the issue it is your rights that are at risk. Many other countries counter terrorism without suspending habeous corpus.
Well it always comes down to the philosophical debate: the rights of the individual vs the rights of the community.
When do individual rights start diminishing the rights of the community?
And when to the rights of the community start diminishing the rights of the individual?
Some would argue that these day the rights of the individual has gone too far and the community is now starting to decay in self absorbed people only interested in how much they can consume from the community.
Others would argue that the attempt to move back to the rights of the community threatens the rights of the individual.
But what people forget is that a ‘right’ is not really a ‘right’. It is a privilege that was fought for and try standing up in front of someone and say ‘I have my rights’ in a country where you have no rights. You would simply disappear and many people do in these countries.
It is a balance that needs to be found. I know that to keep the rights that I have, I also have to protect the community in which I live.
If the community is lost, then I could end up losing my rights to the new community that will evolve to replace the old one.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
gmc;1330941 wrote: I suppose killing someone gently and with consideration is more humane.Not in the slightest. Dead is dead, once you're gone you're completely and for ever oblivious of anything at all, including the way you went. Which is just as well since the vast majority of people suffer appalling and protracted agony while reaching that stage, far greater than anything suffered by stoning or hanging or electrocution or lethal injection or, at a reasonable guess, being drawn and quartered. I'd agree that obliteration by something heavy and fast is a blessing which someone half way through, say, terminal pneumonia might happily swap with, but neither process leaves a permanent conscious scar. Death cures all ills.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
mikeinie;1330953 wrote: It is a balance that needs to be found. I know that to keep the rights that I have, I also have to protect the community in which I live.What's completely unjustifiable is to interfere in someone else's community (with the nominal exception of genocide which the UN seems powerless to invoke). If you, an outsider, attempt to make changes in a community of which you're not a member, the community will inevitably close ranks and in the process perpetuate the behaviour of which you're so critical. Stay out of it, let them evolve their own solutions. It's not your business.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
mikeinie;1330932 wrote: I don't disagree, but here is a question, at what price are you willing to sacrifice your freedom?
Are you willing to protect those who want to take away you rights? And who do not care about your freedom?
At what point do you start fighting to save your freedom?
Or do you let people slowing chip away at it and do nothing so that you do not offend them?
These are tough questions, but there are people out there to whom you are their enemy.
I am not willing to sacrifice my freedom at all - neither am I prepared to invade other countries who are no threat to that freedom and I am certainly not prepared to sacrifice my principles by resorting to torturing prisoners and holding prisoner, without trial, people snatched off the street on hearsay evidence of unspecified crimes. They are the actions of a police state of the worst kind.
Are you willing to protect those who want to take away you rights? And who do not care about your freedom?
At what point do you start fighting to save your freedom?
Or do you let people slowing chip away at it and do nothing so that you do not offend them?
These are tough questions, but there are people out there to whom you are their enemy.
I am not willing to sacrifice my freedom at all - neither am I prepared to invade other countries who are no threat to that freedom and I am certainly not prepared to sacrifice my principles by resorting to torturing prisoners and holding prisoner, without trial, people snatched off the street on hearsay evidence of unspecified crimes. They are the actions of a police state of the worst kind.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
mikeinie;1330953 wrote: Well it always comes down to the philosophical debate: the rights of the individual vs the rights of the community.
When do individual rights start diminishing the rights of the community?
And when to the rights of the community start diminishing the rights of the individual?
Some would argue that these day the rights of the individual has gone too far and the community is now starting to decay in self absorbed people only interested in how much they can consume from the community.
Others would argue that the attempt to move back to the rights of the community threatens the rights of the individual.
But what people forget is that a ‘right’ is not really a ‘right’. It is a privilege that was fought for and try standing up in front of someone and say ‘I have my rights’ in a country where you have no rights. You would simply disappear and many people do in these countries.
It is a balance that needs to be found. I know that to keep the rights that I have, I also have to protect the community in which I live.
If the community is lost, then I could end up losing my rights to the new community that will evolve to replace the old one.
For community substitute state and then read what you have written. The "rights" and "freedoms" we have now have indeed been fought for down the centuries and you appear to be willing to throw them all away in the name of the safety of the state - .
When do individual rights start diminishing the rights of the community?
And when to the rights of the community start diminishing the rights of the individual?
Some would argue that these day the rights of the individual has gone too far and the community is now starting to decay in self absorbed people only interested in how much they can consume from the community.
Others would argue that the attempt to move back to the rights of the community threatens the rights of the individual.
But what people forget is that a ‘right’ is not really a ‘right’. It is a privilege that was fought for and try standing up in front of someone and say ‘I have my rights’ in a country where you have no rights. You would simply disappear and many people do in these countries.
It is a balance that needs to be found. I know that to keep the rights that I have, I also have to protect the community in which I live.
If the community is lost, then I could end up losing my rights to the new community that will evolve to replace the old one.
For community substitute state and then read what you have written. The "rights" and "freedoms" we have now have indeed been fought for down the centuries and you appear to be willing to throw them all away in the name of the safety of the state - .
Obama ! Free Homaidan
posted by mikienie
Well it always comes down to the philosophical debate: the rights of the individual vs the rights of the community.
When do individual rights start diminishing the rights of the community?
And when to the rights of the community start diminishing the rights of the individual?
Bit more than a philosophical debate it's also an ongoing conflict. There are many in saudi who would argue that the rights of the Indonesian women are secondary to the well being of the community in which she lives, almost a non-person. In the west most would probably disagree nowadays. But in Edwardian times women suffragettes were seen as dangerous radicals that threatened the community and their demand for equal rights a nonsense. Arguably the rights of the community are nothing if the rights of all are not respected. In a religious society there is a hierarchy of rights with the religious leaders supreme and literally laying down the law. The fact we can have a debate about it in the first place is because secularists won the wars of religion
Well it always comes down to the philosophical debate: the rights of the individual vs the rights of the community.
When do individual rights start diminishing the rights of the community?
And when to the rights of the community start diminishing the rights of the individual?
Bit more than a philosophical debate it's also an ongoing conflict. There are many in saudi who would argue that the rights of the Indonesian women are secondary to the well being of the community in which she lives, almost a non-person. In the west most would probably disagree nowadays. But in Edwardian times women suffragettes were seen as dangerous radicals that threatened the community and their demand for equal rights a nonsense. Arguably the rights of the community are nothing if the rights of all are not respected. In a religious society there is a hierarchy of rights with the religious leaders supreme and literally laying down the law. The fact we can have a debate about it in the first place is because secularists won the wars of religion
Obama ! Free Homaidan
spot;1330957 wrote: What's completely unjustifiable is to interfere in someone else's community (with the nominal exception of genocide which the UN seems powerless to invoke). If you, an outsider, attempt to make changes in a community of which you're not a member, the community will inevitably close ranks and in the process perpetuate the behaviour of which you're so critical. Stay out of it, let them evolve their own solutions. It's not your business.
Well then what is a community? Does it stop at the edge of town? A country border? A continent?
What about the global community?
Are we not suppose to care that in a country a woman, who has not voice, no rights, no one looking out for her can be stoned to death in public?
We care more if an iceberg is melting in Antarctica then we do about people having their humanity destroyed.
It is OK for us to turn our back and do nothing because, ‘it isn’t my country’…
What we were supposed to learn from WW2 is that it never stops at a border, and eventually, if nothing is done, we all get dragged into it eventually.
Right is right, and wrong is wrong, and it is wrong to bash someone’s head in with rocks, no matter what country it is in, and then sleep OK because, what the heck, it isn’t in my country.
Well then what is a community? Does it stop at the edge of town? A country border? A continent?
What about the global community?
Are we not suppose to care that in a country a woman, who has not voice, no rights, no one looking out for her can be stoned to death in public?
We care more if an iceberg is melting in Antarctica then we do about people having their humanity destroyed.
It is OK for us to turn our back and do nothing because, ‘it isn’t my country’…
What we were supposed to learn from WW2 is that it never stops at a border, and eventually, if nothing is done, we all get dragged into it eventually.
Right is right, and wrong is wrong, and it is wrong to bash someone’s head in with rocks, no matter what country it is in, and then sleep OK because, what the heck, it isn’t in my country.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
mikeinie;1330993 wrote: Well then what is a community? Does it stop at the edge of town? A country border? A continent?
What about the global community?
Are we not suppose to care that in a country a woman, who has not voice, no rights, no one looking out for her can be stoned to death in public?
We care more if an iceberg is melting in Antarctica then we do about people having their humanity destroyed.
It is OK for us to turn our back and do nothing because, ‘it isn’t my country’…
What we were supposed to learn from WW2 is that it never stops at a border, and eventually, if nothing is done, we all get dragged into it eventually.
Right is right, and wrong is wrong, and it is wrong to bash someone’s head in with rocks, no matter what country it is in, and then sleep OK because, what the heck, it isn’t in my country.
Simple - it stops at your countries borders. No country has the right to invade another for any reason - full stop, end of sentence.
The UN, as the representative of the global community, has the right to intervene but no single country or group of countries has that right.
In WWII we had a mutual defence pact with Czechoslovakia and, when they were attacked, effectively we were attacked and responded to that attack.
Tell me, if it is wrong to bash someone's head in with rocks, why is it right to tie them into a chair and electrocute them? Do you sleep OK because, what the heck, it's my country?
What about the global community?
Are we not suppose to care that in a country a woman, who has not voice, no rights, no one looking out for her can be stoned to death in public?
We care more if an iceberg is melting in Antarctica then we do about people having their humanity destroyed.
It is OK for us to turn our back and do nothing because, ‘it isn’t my country’…
What we were supposed to learn from WW2 is that it never stops at a border, and eventually, if nothing is done, we all get dragged into it eventually.
Right is right, and wrong is wrong, and it is wrong to bash someone’s head in with rocks, no matter what country it is in, and then sleep OK because, what the heck, it isn’t in my country.
Simple - it stops at your countries borders. No country has the right to invade another for any reason - full stop, end of sentence.
The UN, as the representative of the global community, has the right to intervene but no single country or group of countries has that right.
In WWII we had a mutual defence pact with Czechoslovakia and, when they were attacked, effectively we were attacked and responded to that attack.
Tell me, if it is wrong to bash someone's head in with rocks, why is it right to tie them into a chair and electrocute them? Do you sleep OK because, what the heck, it's my country?
Obama ! Free Homaidan
mikeinie;1330993 wrote: Are we not suppose to care that in a country a woman, who has not voice, no rights, no one looking out for her can be stoned to death in public?It's entirely arguable that Saudi law offers women far greater safety and security than those living in any Western jurisdiction. You're being selective in claiming no voice, no rights, no care, to the extent of being obviously inaccurate. You'd make your points far more effectively if you stuck to claims which couldn't be so easily refuted. Do ask if you'd like examples.
Nations decide what's legal and what's illegal. They also decide on both the nature and extent of penalties. In my own opinion the Western obsession with criminalizing the market in recreational drugs is a horrifying error with far more consequence than the Saudis imposing amputations and death sentences. Criminalizing litterbugs and not uniformly prosecuting offenders generates a contempt for the boundary between lawful and unlawful behaviour. The thread's described some sentencing as draconian but draconian (in that slack sense) is exactly what sentencing ought to be. It would, for one thing, get trivial antisocial behaviour like littering off the statute books. If something's a crime then stamp it out root and branch but before you go down that route, revoke the nine tenths of the statutes which you're not prepared to enforce effectively.
By all means bring in World Governance with a single legal code if that's what you want, but bear in mind you have to balance that with universal representation. If Saudi citizens can't vote for their own Westminster and Washington representatives then Westminster and Washington can have no say in how the Saudis legislate, and neither can you.
Nations decide what's legal and what's illegal. They also decide on both the nature and extent of penalties. In my own opinion the Western obsession with criminalizing the market in recreational drugs is a horrifying error with far more consequence than the Saudis imposing amputations and death sentences. Criminalizing litterbugs and not uniformly prosecuting offenders generates a contempt for the boundary between lawful and unlawful behaviour. The thread's described some sentencing as draconian but draconian (in that slack sense) is exactly what sentencing ought to be. It would, for one thing, get trivial antisocial behaviour like littering off the statute books. If something's a crime then stamp it out root and branch but before you go down that route, revoke the nine tenths of the statutes which you're not prepared to enforce effectively.
By all means bring in World Governance with a single legal code if that's what you want, but bear in mind you have to balance that with universal representation. If Saudi citizens can't vote for their own Westminster and Washington representatives then Westminster and Washington can have no say in how the Saudis legislate, and neither can you.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Bryn Mawr;1330998 wrote:
Tell me, if it is wrong to bash someone's head in with rocks, why is it right to tie them into a chair and electrocute them?
The electric chair is no longer in use now that we have more humane means, namely lethal injection. The entire point being that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary pain.
Tell me, if it is wrong to bash someone's head in with rocks, why is it right to tie them into a chair and electrocute them?
The electric chair is no longer in use now that we have more humane means, namely lethal injection. The entire point being that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary pain.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Saint_;1331006 wrote: The electric chair is no longer in use now that we have more humane means, namely lethal injection. The entire point being that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary pain.
I suspect there's more far more distress caused by the drawn-out legal process which executes people a decade or two after sentencing than there is from a minute or two getting bricked, most of which involves no consciousness whatever. You're selectively focussing on the part of the problem which isn't yours at the expense of the part of the problem which is. Essentially, you do not come to the argument with clean hands. That's why you're reduced to comparing vilenesses rather than being able to outright condemn the whole issue of judicial killing.
I suspect there's more far more distress caused by the drawn-out legal process which executes people a decade or two after sentencing than there is from a minute or two getting bricked, most of which involves no consciousness whatever. You're selectively focussing on the part of the problem which isn't yours at the expense of the part of the problem which is. Essentially, you do not come to the argument with clean hands. That's why you're reduced to comparing vilenesses rather than being able to outright condemn the whole issue of judicial killing.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
spot;1331005 wrote: It's entirely arguable that Saudi law offers women far greater safety and security than those living in any Western jurisdiction.
The safety and security of a "pet" or a "slave."
Nations decide what's legal and what's illegal. They also decide on both the nature and extent of penalties.
Yes they do, and other countries in the past have decided that genocide is legal and that the penalty for being a certain kind of person is death. No one here would argue that that is not both unjust and wrong. Just like Saudi and Sharia "law."
criminalizing the market in recreational drugs is an error with far more consequence than the Saudis imposing amputations and death sentences.
How do you equate a prison term, with food, medical care, and recreation ... with an amputation? or Murder? I may even agree with you that criminalizing the drug market has resulted in Prohibition-like crime, but I would never say putting people in prison is worse than killing them.
draconian is exactly what sentencing ought to be.
To be that harsh and evil, a society would have to take all humanity out of it's justice system. That's called "Totalitarianism" which results in purges, pogroms, and massacres and it is to be avoided at all costs.
The safety and security of a "pet" or a "slave."
Nations decide what's legal and what's illegal. They also decide on both the nature and extent of penalties.
Yes they do, and other countries in the past have decided that genocide is legal and that the penalty for being a certain kind of person is death. No one here would argue that that is not both unjust and wrong. Just like Saudi and Sharia "law."
criminalizing the market in recreational drugs is an error with far more consequence than the Saudis imposing amputations and death sentences.
How do you equate a prison term, with food, medical care, and recreation ... with an amputation? or Murder? I may even agree with you that criminalizing the drug market has resulted in Prohibition-like crime, but I would never say putting people in prison is worse than killing them.
draconian is exactly what sentencing ought to be.
To be that harsh and evil, a society would have to take all humanity out of it's justice system. That's called "Totalitarianism" which results in purges, pogroms, and massacres and it is to be avoided at all costs.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
spot;1331007 wrote: I suspect there's more far more distress caused by the drawn-out legal process which executes people a decade or two after sentencing than there is from a minute or two getting bricked,
Holy crap, Spot. For an intelligent man, you astound me sometimes. I agree with you on one thread only to find you popping off with some off-the-wall statement like this one somewhere else.
1. If the process is drawn out, it is to make sure that justice is done and no mistakes are made. Much better than quick cold-blooded murder.
2. In our country, we reserved that penalty for only those who have proven to be vicious, mad-dog killers without a hope of being reformed. Only the most horrendous and heinous get the ultimate penalty, not just someone who sleeps with someone else while married.
3... and a little suspense and apprehension is worse than hearing your own skull split open and having to see your own blood and brains on the ground as you die ?!!! COME ON!!
Holy crap, Spot. For an intelligent man, you astound me sometimes. I agree with you on one thread only to find you popping off with some off-the-wall statement like this one somewhere else.
1. If the process is drawn out, it is to make sure that justice is done and no mistakes are made. Much better than quick cold-blooded murder.
2. In our country, we reserved that penalty for only those who have proven to be vicious, mad-dog killers without a hope of being reformed. Only the most horrendous and heinous get the ultimate penalty, not just someone who sleeps with someone else while married.
3... and a little suspense and apprehension is worse than hearing your own skull split open and having to see your own blood and brains on the ground as you die ?!!! COME ON!!
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Saint_;1331006 wrote: The electric chair is no longer in use now that we have more humane means, namely lethal injection. The entire point being that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary pain.
The point being it is inhumane to kill, it does not make it right by doing it one way rather than another.
The point being it is inhumane to kill, it does not make it right by doing it one way rather than another.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
posted by spot
It's entirely arguable that Saudi law offers women far greater safety and security than those living in any Western jurisdiction. You're being selective in claiming no voice, no rights, no care, to the extent of being obviously inaccurate. You'd make your points far more effectively if you stuck to claims which couldn't be so easily refuted. Do ask if you'd like examples.
It may be arguable andn indeed many saudi males will argue that case. It doesn't make it a valid argument though does it? You could also argue women were safer in Victorian times than they are now in the UK. How many women would you think would want see those days back?
It's entirely arguable that Saudi law offers women far greater safety and security than those living in any Western jurisdiction. You're being selective in claiming no voice, no rights, no care, to the extent of being obviously inaccurate. You'd make your points far more effectively if you stuck to claims which couldn't be so easily refuted. Do ask if you'd like examples.
It may be arguable andn indeed many saudi males will argue that case. It doesn't make it a valid argument though does it? You could also argue women were safer in Victorian times than they are now in the UK. How many women would you think would want see those days back?