Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Liberal Saudi Web Forum Founder Sentenced To 600 Lashes and 7 Years In Prison

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the take-a-moment-to-appreciate-free-speech dept.

Government 506

cold fjord writes "Some reformers travel a harder road than others. The Seattle Times reports, 'The founder of a liberal-minded website in Saudi Arabia has been sentenced to seven years in prison and 600 lashes after angering Islamic authorities in the ultraconservative kingdom. ... Raif Badawi, through his website known as Free Saudi Liberals, had urged Saudis to share opinions about the role of religion in the country, which follows a strict form of Islam that includes harsh punishments for challenging customs. A judge in the Red Sea port of Jiddah imposed the sentences but dropped charges of apostasy, which could have brought a death sentence, the Al-Watan newspaper reported. Badawi has been held since June 2012.' More at details are available at the BBC, which informs us that 'The judge ordered that the 600 lashes be administered 150 at a time.' 'The lashes could be spread out but in Sharia this is a sign that the judge wants to insult him,' Badawi's lawyer said."

cancel ×

506 comments

150 lashes? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44439425)

How many does it take to kill a person? Just wondering...

Empirically determined to be survivable ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44439545)

How many does it take to kill a person? Just wondering...

Given that we are dealing with a society and judicial system that is fine with beheading people with a sword I'd say that it takes far more than 150 usually. If they wanted to kill a person they are well informed and well practiced. When there is a limit in such an environment it has probably been empirically determined to be survivable for the average person.

Re:150 lashes? (4, Interesting)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#44439561)

I doubt you can really put a number on it. I know there used to be superstition on exactly this topic and people used to only get some odd number for that reason; however, I think its likely that either someone once died while being whipped; starting the rumor, or someone started it just to have an excuse not to go overboard.

In reality I think it would come down to both the health of the person and the technique of the lasher. I have certainly given 150 or more lashings and seen others give even more/harder lashings but, I doubt anything we do in our bedrooms comes close to what these guys do.

Would also depend on the whip. A bull whip, for example, is much worst than most modern bsdm "cat o 9 tails" types that tend to be made from 10s of foot long strips of soft leather. In fact, I have heard people rant about idiots with no experience who buy bull whips as sex toys without realizing how much damage they can do.

Its likely highly variable.

Re:150 lashes? (4, Interesting)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#44439635)

of course, the funny thing is, I occasionally think twice about posting about smoking pot on here, even though I am not actually admitting to a crime in my state. Yet I don't think twice about admitting to having whipped someone for sexual purposes....when my state makes no exception for consensual bdsm in its domestic abuse laws, and doesn't require the "abused" to even agree that they were abused or want to press charges.

People here still talk about paddleborough

Re:150 lashes? (1)

BreakBad (2955249) | about a year ago | (#44439833)

In America the question is how many licks does it take to get to the center.

Re:150 lashes? (2, Informative)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year ago | (#44439931)

Saudi lashes are not Western lashes.
In Western countries, when we we performed lashes it was full force and if just several dozen were performed you are talking potential death, broken bones, and striping flesh off of ribs.

Saudi lashes lashes are more of a sever spanking, causing bleeding and bruising. In particular the wipper is forced to hold a Koran in their swinging arm.

Re:150 lashes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44439985)

You wouldn't die from the lashes themselves no matter how many you receive (mostly just superficial damage to your skin which technically you don't actually need to live, at least not in a sterile environment).

You can however die from a single lash wound if it becomes infected. The more lashes you receive the more of the wounds will break skin and in general the chance of infection rises.

Since prisoners don't tend to get good medical treatment in jurisdictions where lashings are used as punishment there's probably a point where the level of care needed to prevent infection becomes impractical in prison. Which would lead to a "rule of thumb" about how many lashings you can give without killing someone, though even then it would depend in part on how sanitary the prison is.

WTF? (4, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about a year ago | (#44439429)

Good thing we are still friendly with this nation who is a shining beacon of freedom.

Re:WTF? (5, Funny)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44439487)

You've been taught a myth in your high school science classes. They tell you that millions of years ago algae and small plants died, and decomposed into oils and coals. This is an evolutionist myth, because the world is only 6001 years old.

Oil actually comes from unnecessary human suffering, but because evil liberal evolutionists conspired to end slavery in the U.S., we had to outsource our oil production to the middle east.

Re:WTF? (1, Insightful)

bondsbw (888959) | about a year ago | (#44439513)

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]

Re:WTF? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44439565)

Blocked at my work, so... thanks for that one link reply where the domain trails off before telling me the point of the site.

Re:WTF? (1)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#44439899)

I find it odd that that site is blocked. There is no "objectionable" material on it; ie nakedness, weapons, hatemongering, etc. Just a clipart style poster with icons you can hover over, and a link to buy the poster.

Re:WTF? (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about a year ago | (#44439955)

There is no "objectionable" material on it

Everything is objectionable, Nothing is truly anodyne.

Re:WTF? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44439973)

I guessed that, but I'm not sure what logical fallacy they even meant to apply to a joke. (Also, I'm not sure why they got modded up for that, but my posts that get modded up are often the ones that really don't deserve it, so whatever)

Re:WTF? (1)

B33rNinj4 (666756) | about a year ago | (#44439993)

Damn libs!

Re:WTF? (2)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year ago | (#44439495)

still friendly with this nation

Yep, Oil kind of trumps all.

Re:WTF? (0)

JWW (79176) | about a year ago | (#44439663)

All I gotta say is, drill baby drill ... In North Dakota, and South Dakota.

We've got to stop relying on oil from these assholes.

Re:WTF? (4, Insightful)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#44439733)

We've got to stop relying on oil.

FTFY

Re:WTF? (1)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#44439821)

We've got to stop relying on oil.

Yeah, sure, that's a noble lofty goal I approve.

But in the mean time it would sure be nice if the US were a net exporter of oil, the way we are with other fossil fuels. If the goal is stopping support of morally abhorrent behavior in the Middle East, I suggest we take the quick and practical path there. Then we can chase your dream.

Ceasing to fund egregious human rights violations seems like a higher priority, to me.

Re:WTF? (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44439767)

Your word for today is Fungible. Learn what it means.

We need to stop using so much oil at all.

Re:WTF? (1)

jythie (914043) | about a year ago | (#44439879)

Oil seems to be a bit of a source of assholes. Any place that seems to have a lot of former sees a rise in the later, or at least ones who can actually do something with their attitudes.

Sarcasm Award. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44439515)

Good thing we are still friendly with this nation who is a shining beacon of freedom.

I hereby declare that Linux Nutcase gets the sarcasm award.

Well done sir!

Especially when you consider we import hardly any oil from them anymore. (Canada and Mexico are the biggest suppliers of foreign oil to the US.)

Gotta wonder why "we're" so friendly with them.

Re:WTF? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44439539)

Good thing we are still friendly with this nation who is a shining beacon of freedom.

Nations don't have friends.

Re:WTF? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44439547)

They have oil and they're friendly to our oil interests so they get a pass on this stuff. George Bush can probably see in to their souls or something.

The man's only real crime was to annoy those in power. In that country religion is a tool the rich use to enslave the poor. You'll notice this in all countries where religion is close to state function.

Re:WTF? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#44439757)

You'll notice this in all countries where religion is close to state function.

Like the USA which has "In God we trust" on their currency.

Re:WTF? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44439793)

That is a fairly recent thing. It was added during the commie scares.

The USA does have too much religion in our politics, but that seems to be killing the republican party so hopefully it will end soon. One day they will learn Goldwater was a fortune teller, not someone to forget about.

Re:WTF? (3, Insightful)

Holi (250190) | about a year ago | (#44440001)

Killing the republican party? I don't think so. If they were dying they would not be having so much success in the state governments. And beyond that they have infected the democratic party. Look haw far to the right we have moved. Where you once saw republicans we now see democrats on the political spectrum. The hard right and the middle are well covered in politics what we lack now is a voice from the actual left. So no the republican party is not dying, but the democratic party is.

Re:WTF? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44439913)

George Bush can probably see in to their souls or something.

It's 2013. Care to catch up to current events? Oh, that's right. You probably don't because it would betray your messiah as just as much a tyrant as W.... probably even more of one.

Re:WTF? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44439577)

yes.. they are the right wing christian's theocratic wet dream

Re:WTF? (4, Interesting)

sideslash (1865434) | about a year ago | (#44439781)

yes.. they are the right wing christian's theocratic wet dream

No, right wing Christians are generally much bigger fans of Saudi Arabia's only truly democratic and generally freedom-espousing neighbor, Israel. To get on Israel's bad side in terms of speech, you pretty much have to give a threat of genocide. Which of course actually does happen frequently due to the loveliness of Islamic Sharia and its campaigns against the Western world. Which brings us back to Saudi Arabia.

Re:WTF? (1)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#44439791)

Shining beacon of freedom, shining beacon of oil--one of those.

Remember this (4, Insightful)

bondsbw (888959) | about a year ago | (#44439455)

Remember this when you get an urge to say that America and Western society is oppressive, and when you decide that Islam is a peaceful religion.

Re:Remember this (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about a year ago | (#44439481)

And yet we are friends with them and protect them with our military.

Re:Remember this (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44439645)

And yet we are friends with them and protect them with our military.

Well, they are some of the more "well behaved" people in the region. Saddam made these guys look mild mannered and kind hearted.

Its sort of like picking Stalin over Hitler.

Re:Remember this (5, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about a year ago | (#44439763)

Saddam... Saddam... Wasn't he the one who Don Rumsfeld was chummy with in the 80s and who the Reagan Administration was giving tanks, missiles and technology so he could produce chemical weapons? Oh and who also gave him satellite imagery so he could bomb civilian targets in Iran?

Re:Remember this (4, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44439799)

Bullshit, he let women drive, attend university. That guy was nearly a saint compared to these assholes.

Heck, the CIA put him in power and until Bush 1 he was our best buddy.

Re:Remember this (1)

justthinkit (954982) | about a year ago | (#44439963)

Them? I was thinking it was something much more inanimate that we protect.

Re:Remember this (0)

hondo77 (324058) | about a year ago | (#44439519)

Yes, because the West would never kill or torture its prisoners...

Re:Remember this (1)

stdarg (456557) | about a year ago | (#44439951)

Just because you can phrase it that way by being vague doesn't make it equivalent. What prisoners? What were they guilty of? How frequently does it happen?

Re:Remember this (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year ago | (#44439527)

and when you decide that Islam is a peaceful religion.

It is a peaceful religion. But it's a horrible political system.

Re:Remember this (1)

bondsbw (888959) | about a year ago | (#44439557)

Does the religion not dictate the politics and the legal aspects of their society?

Re:Remember this (4, Interesting)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year ago | (#44439677)

Does the religion not dictate the politics and the legal aspects of their society?

Partially yes, but eventually they will have to come to terms with the fact that 1400? year old religious-based legal system just cannot be applied in a modern world. Many Muslims have already realized this and accepted it, while others are fighting it tooth and nail. But when it does happen, the legal framework within the religion will be forgotten/ignored much like in Judaism, and then it will really be no more violent/dangerous than modern day Christianity and Judaism are. Because when you think about it, where Islam is right now, Christianity was at the same age. Imagine 14th century Christianity existing right now. It would look pretty bad too.

Re:Remember this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44439811)

yes but how long does this take? seems they are still 600 years behind the rest of the world

Re:Remember this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44439823)

Like in Texas?

Re:Remember this (4, Insightful)

stdarg (456557) | about a year ago | (#44439915)

Many Muslims have already realized this and accepted it

"Many" as in millions perhaps, but that's a small percentage of Muslims.

When we're talking about the general Muslim population, the people you may know in the US don't count for anything. It's the large populations in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Egypt, Tunisia, Indonesia, etc. that count. There is widespread support for sharia law throughout the Muslim world.

Because when you think about it, where Islam is right now, Christianity was at the same age. Imagine 14th century Christianity existing right now. It would look pretty bad too.

That argument makes no sense at all. The age of the religion doesn't matter, it's the state of the world that matters. 14th century Christianity was backwards because in the 14th century we didn't have modern science and medicine, electricity, widespread literacy, the Internet, access to the entire world's products and cultures, and instant access to historical information.

Guess what? Muslims have all those things. The literacy rate in Iran is over 98%. Pakistan has over 118 million cell phones.

To top it off there are newer religions that are better, like Sikhism (a monotheistic warrior religion founded in the 15th century as a reaction to the military strength of Islam... that's why they carry swords all the time). Do you think Sikhism is umm 800 years or so behind EVEN ISLAM in terms of modernity? Nope!

Really, if you have a good reason why younger monotheistic religions should be more backwards, despite examples to the contrary, please share it.

Re:Remember this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44439943)

... eventually they will have to come to terms with the fact that 1400? year old religious-based legal system just cannot be applied in a modern world ...

I think you are confusing a "modern world" with a "western world". Clean water, sewage systems, air conditioning, cars, airplanes, computers, cell phones and the internet are not incompatible with this religious-based legal system. This religious-based legal system once governed a culture where the arts, literature, math, science and engineering flourished; it even was tolerant for those who did not challenge the religion.

What is incompatible are various western philosophical ideas such as free speech, personal freedom and the separation of church and state. The problem is not modernity, it is philosophy.

Re:Remember this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44439725)

Does the religion not dictate the politics and the legal aspects of their society?

The largest Muslim country is Indonesia, which is considerably more relaxed. So, in short, no.

Re:Remember this (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44439609)

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]

Hey, if you can use the link as a weapon against other people's bad arguments...

Re:Remember this (1)

GumbyDammit! (3003517) | about a year ago | (#44439747)

So any actions I take are perfectly OK just as long as I can point to someone doing worse? Got it. Btw America and Western society are oppressive; some other regimes more so. Islam is a peaceful religion; but some of its adherents are violent morons.

Re:Remember this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44439787)

Good to hear that the USA would never mistreat a prisoner [theguardian.com] .

Re:Remember this (2, Insightful)

OzPeter (195038) | about a year ago | (#44439867)

Remember this when you get an urge to say that America and Western society is oppressive, and when you decide that Islam is a peaceful religion.

Saying that that Wahhabism [wikipedia.org] is representative of Islam is like saying that the Westoboro Baptist Church [wikipedia.org] is representative of Christians.

Re:Remember this (3, Insightful)

aggie_knight (611726) | about a year ago | (#44439997)

Remember this when you get an urge to say that America and Western society is oppressive, and when you decide that Islam is a peaceful religion.

I think you are confusing a political system with a religion.

Saudi Arabia is a country that leverages their religion to implement a very conservative and authoritarian society.

Islam is a religion.

Remember, Christianity has been used throughout history as an excuse to kill, maim, rape, and torture millions of people too. Pretending that Islam is unique in the barbarism that is executed in its name is fuzzy logic at best.

600? That's a lot (1)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about a year ago | (#44439463)

At least he won't need mascara

Perfect role for a darknet site (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#44439497)

Too bad she didn't use one...

should we offer him asylum? (1)

jankoh (2547488) | about a year ago | (#44439503)

This is (should be) a BIG dilemma... For any "normal" country... He's a brave guy, a probably could lead a better life elsewhere... BUT, if there ever should be a chance to change Saudi Arabia to a more liberal country, it'd better be changed from inside... (Probably can only happen many years after they run out of oil :-( )

150 at a time? (1)

judoguy (534886) | about a year ago | (#44439525)

Holy Moley, in his place I'd be happy to be a lot more insulted, say one a day. 150? Youser!

Re:150 at a time? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44439643)

I doubt you'd survive 600 in one day. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this person dies after the first 150.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/11/how_many_lashes_can_one_man_take.html

Re:150 at a time? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44439695)

And now as a clickable link: how many lashes can one man take [slate.com]

Re:150 at a time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44439721)

To the OP:

I misunderstood what you wrote. I thought you were stating that you'd rather have them all at one time, but you actually stated that you'd rather have only one each day. Sorry about that.

The link is still an informative read.

Re:150 at a time? (1)

PRMan (959735) | about a year ago | (#44439735)

One of the points that The Passion of the Christ gets wrong is the number of lashes given to Jesus. There were strict rules in those days that limited people to "40 lashes minus 1". Of course, they probably don't have glass and broken pottery in their whip, but you could do some serious damage to someone's internal organs with 150 lashes at once.

Re:150 at a time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44439817)

Wasn't that a Jewish rule, and not a Roman one? It was the Roman government (Pilate) which ordered it, and a Roman soldier who carried out the lashings. I doubt the Roman government was particularly concerned with following a Jewish rule about administering punishment. It's very well possible that they only did "40 minus 1," but there isn't any proof one way or the other (that I know of).

America (4, Insightful)

Iniamyen (2440798) | about a year ago | (#44439541)

As much as I love bitching about the issues that we have here in America, seeing what happens in shitholes like Saudi Arabia makes me feel really lucky to have been born here.

Re:America (1, Troll)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44439685)

As much as I love bitching about the issues that we have here in America, seeing what happens in shitholes like Saudi Arabia makes me feel really lucky to have been born here.

... Our government ruin millions of people's lives over possession of a plant - one conviction and you not only lose your freedom for several years, you lose all opportunity for college scholarships and grants, and have to spend the rest of your life in poverty, working shit, low-wage jobs thanks to a felony conviction. For having a fucking plant on you.

But yea, no physical punishment; at least, not legally sanctioned (although I think Brad Manning might have a thing or two to say about that), and you can say whatever stupid shit you want, so long as it doesn't affect the status quo. How much better, more noble our oppressors are than theirs...

Re:America (1)

Iniamyen (2440798) | about a year ago | (#44439929)

Yes, let me direct you to the first part of my post: As much as I love bitching about the issues that we have here in America,...

Maybe if you weren't smoking so much of said plant, you'd make a better case about wanting the freedom to do so...

Re:America (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44439819)

Move to Canada - much more civilised (but cold as deep fuckin' space in the winter.)

I suppose this makes the NSA stuff less bad . . . (1)

DutchUncle (826473) | about a year ago | (#44439555)

I mean, they just read your mail, they don't whip you for it.

Re:I suppose this makes the NSA stuff less bad . . (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44439639)

yet

Flaming Liberal!! (4, Insightful)

happy_place (632005) | about a year ago | (#44439579)

The Flaming Liberal, clearly he got what he deserves... 600 lashes and 7 years in prison will definitely change his mind and reform him about those wrong-headed ideas that the blessed Shariah Law-abiding Conservatives of Saudi Arabia are not too punative or quick to deal out harsh rulings.

A prime example (4, Insightful)

kheldan (1460303) | about a year ago | (#44439589)

Yet another prime example of why alien civilizations won't contact us openly: How can a truly civilized race possibly take us as anything other than animals when we still do things like this? Our so-called "civilization" is just as thin a patina over the animal underneath as our neo-cortex is over the rest of our brains. It's positively heartbreaking to read of things like this in this day and age when I know that the human race, at it's best, is in such stark contrast with such senseless ignorance and brutality.

No, I'm not joking, and I'm not trolling either; this is really how I feel about this, and I don't care if anyone likes it or not.
Bracing for being flamed all the way down to "-1, Troll" for daring to speak my mind, which ironically enough will prove my point for me better than I can prove it myself.

Re:A prime example (4, Insightful)

Zak3056 (69287) | about a year ago | (#44439641)

Yet another prime example of why alien civilizations won't contact us openly:

Well, that and the fact that you couldn't get here from pretty much anywhere in any reasonable amount of time. Personally, I tend to think that's a bigger reason than any particular human behavior, but hey, whatever works for you.

Re:A prime example (4, Insightful)

kheldan (1460303) | about a year ago | (#44439675)

I'm not so arrogant to believe that we've discovered everything physics has to offer, so I'll still hold out for the possibility of methods of travelling interstellar distances in relatively short periods of time.

Re:A prime example (1)

BaronAaron (658646) | about a year ago | (#44439795)

or the aliens live a very long time.

Re:A prime example (3, Interesting)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#44439881)

This presumes the aliens have a lifespan similar to our own.

Just here on earth, compare:

Lifespan of a fruit fly: about 7 to 14 days.
Time to travel across the US by highway, east to west: 7 to 14 days (depending on traffic and route taken)

What truckers do routinely as a vocation takes an entire lifetime for a fly.

Again, that's just here on earth.

If said aliens have 1000 year lifespans, then they could spend 300 years training for the mission, 300 years to get here from the nearest star, and 300 years to return there, and still have around 100 years to tell the rest of their civilization all about it. (We are assuming some non-trivial fraction of C during travel.)

Re:A prime example (2)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about a year ago | (#44439935)

Yet another prime example of why alien civilizations won't contact us openly:

Well, that and the fact that you couldn't get here from pretty much anywhere in any reasonable amount of time. Personally, I tend to think that's a bigger reason than any particular human behavior, but hey, whatever works for you.

Human behavior is why aliens put our planet way out in the middle of no where...

Re:A prime example (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44439745)

How can a truly civilized race possibly take us as anything other than animals when we still do things like this? Our so-called "civilization" is just as thin a patina over the animal underneath as our neo-cortex is over the rest of our brains.

You shouldn't imply that animals are as bad as we are. No other species inflicts completely pointless suffering on others like we do. It's one of the traits that makes us unique.

Re:A prime example (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a year ago | (#44439831)

Have you ever watched a cat play with an animal it caught? Sometimes, they eat them when they are done, but often times they get up and walk away when they can't get it to move any more.

Re:A prime example (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44439977)

Yes, but everyone knows cats are evil.

Anyway, this entire thread is hilarious at best. If alien species exist (I admit the math is in favor of it) - there's very, very, very little indication that they're some sort of peace-loving, universally understanding utopian delusion-based gods.

No, we're not being contacted because a) space is really fucking big, b) we're not really all that interesting as life goes, c) we're not a threat to anyone, and d) we don't have anything on our little planet worth the bother of hiking out to some random backwater solar system.

Re:A prime example (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44439945)

OP needs to read Heinlins Starship Troopers. The movie didn't explain the philosophy behind capital punishment.

Re:A prime example (2)

djmurdoch (306849) | about a year ago | (#44439827)

Bracing for being flamed all the way down to "-1, Troll" for daring to speak my mind, which ironically enough will prove my point for me better than I can prove it myself.

As I'm writing this, you are sitting at "4, Insightful". So I guess that proves you are wrong. Ironic, isn't it?

Re:A prime example (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44439839)

My problem with your post is your use of the words: "us", "we", "Our". This is a legitimate reason to downvote your post, and shows a lack of insight.

Re:A prime example (1)

jarkus4 (1627895) | about a year ago | (#44439857)

How can a truly civilized race possibly take us as anything other than animals when we still dont worship the Great Kztplrhw and dont kill all heretics using most brutal tortures imaginable?
Thats what you meant, right?

With friends like this... (1)

PoochieReds (4973) | about a year ago | (#44439595)

...you know the rest.

I used to organize data smuggling data into Saudi (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44439619)

In the 90's, on Jaz drives no less.
True story.

At least... (1)

mdielmann (514750) | about a year ago | (#44439627)

At least they dropped the apostasy charges, right? Right?

These people need more Voltaire [brainyquote.com] . *sigh*

Any American daring to condemn this ... (0)

Aethedor (973725) | about a year ago | (#44439691)

... look at what your government does to people anywhere around the world.

Re:Any American daring to condemn this ... (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about a year ago | (#44439965)

... look at what your government does to people anywhere around the world.

Could America do better? Yes, MUCH better - But the USA is still orders-of-magnitudes better than the ignorant savages in these Islamic theocracies. Last time I checked, this non-AC Slashdot post won't get me lashed and thrown in prison for seven years. If I look out the window I can see unaccompanied women with their faces uncovered (gasp!) driving cars.

And no, I'm not American...

Why do we associate with these barbarians? (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44439737)

So we deal with these assholes but threaten war with the Iranians? Anyone want to explain that?

Re:Why do we associate with these barbarians? (3, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | about a year ago | (#44439905)

Sure. There are zero good cultures in the ME, so pitting one variety of Muslim against the other is the most efficient way to (help) maintain the divisions and schismatic violence which they love so well and practiced long before tasty oil made it necessary to deal with them.

We must have energy, cheap energy, and since much of that energy comes from our cultural enemies the situation requires careful, amoral manipulation.

When dealing with beasts, choose the most useful. The Wahabis are brutal and nasty, but they need a military edge against their Persian enemies who are also infected with the same superstition. As long as they are enemies, at least one side needs the EUSian oil consumers as clients.

Re:Why do we associate with these barbarians? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44439947)

The iranians could have a nice secular government and would have had we not caused them to have the revolution.

We kept the Shah in power while he ran death squads then acted surprised when they turned against us.

Re:Why do we associate with these barbarians? (2)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#44439937)

These assholes aren't building nukes. The combination of "capable of building WMDs" and "not terrified of the consequences of selling an WMD to a terrorist" is something we prefer to deter, as the death toll is far less that way than if it ends up with retribution instead.

Re:Why do we associate with these barbarians? (2, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44439987)

No, they buy their WMDs from us.

The Iranians are building nukes since they saw what not having them meant for Saddam. If you want to go down that road there is another country in that region that has nukes no one is allowed to inspect, often unilaterally attacks its neighbors and is running a brutal occupation in ways that violates international agreements including using tactics like collective punishment. For some reason we are best buds with them too.

Re:Why do we associate with these barbarians? (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about a year ago | (#44439969)

So we deal with these assholes but threaten war with the Iranians? Anyone want to explain that?

Saudi Arabia has Oil, Iran has (enriched or soon to be enriched) Uranium.

Someone should tell Saudi Arabia... (2)

sasquatch989 (2663479) | about a year ago | (#44439759)

That god isn't real, and Muhammed wasn't all that special. It's to bad that all those stupid people have all that money

what a shithole (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44439783)

what a shithole

Here come the relativists... (-1, Troll)

MikeRT (947531) | about a year ago | (#44439883)

By the time this thread gets up to 200 comments, there will probably be several people saying "but Christianity/Judaism did X for thousands of years too!" to try to downplay the fact that Islamic societies are really not that much different in many ways from where they started. Go back 2,000 years and you'll find that the level of behavior we all find barbaric (crucifiction, torture, rape-as-war-tactic and many others) were very common all across the world. What you'll find, though, is that the societies that systematically started moving away from them the hardest are the ones that embraced monotheism of the Judao-Christian line.

The problem isn't the Arabs, Persians, Egyptians, etc. The communities that embrace the other Abrahamic religions in those countries are peaceful. A Christian Arab is no more likely to violently attack The Other on the street than a typical mainline American Christian. Similarly, white American converts to Islam are often as violent and extreme as conservative Arab and Persian Muslims.

If Saudi Arabia were overwhelmingly Coptic, not Islamic, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Different cultures, different rules (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#44439885)

In a lot of countries kids (up to age 18) can't go to jail, even if they kill someone, while in other countries seems to be ok to even jail them with adults and be waterboarded.

In some countries parents could go to prison for putting in their babies earrings, while in others that and similar practices are even promoted by the religions.

Compare receiving that lashes and ending the trouble there to pass up to 30 years of your life in jail [mmajunkie.com] for showing that something that is public is in fact public. Both are pretty bad, but is not something to point to the other side and say "look those savages".

It's a human thang. (1)

ikhider (2837593) | about a year ago | (#44439893)

Some post tirades against religion, citing it as the source of all evil with equal vehemence as the religious cite secularism as such. The fact is people, especially those in power, use (whatever) ideology to justify their actions and firm their grip. Enough states throughout history with "Christian" values did things that make the Saudis seem tame. Same with those who have "anarchist" or "communist" or whatever atheist-based values. Read about Stalin, Lenin, Polpot, Orwell's lovely "Homage to Catalonia". Atheists can be just as nasty a bunch because they are human. I love Albert Camus, but also Thomas Merton. Though it is unpopular to say it, Islam is beautiful, but there are people who pervert it. For instance, women have more rights than men. The way you see men behave in so-called countries, you would never believe it. But then, being an occidental, I know that women here were only considered human in the last 100 years. Previously, they were considered chattel with no right to vote! Woman in Arab civilizations had autonomy, ran businesses, and had citizenry power. We tend to get into dangerous territory when we think we have a monopoly on "truth" instead of self-questioning. Perusing a few books by Chomsky will inform that Americans are no less guilty of such attrocities. Israelis are every bit as nasty as much of their Arab neighbours. Deep down, this is about power, not faith and ideology.

if the Taliban, why NOT this judge? (1)

dltaylor (7510) | about a year ago | (#44439921)

Seems to me, if any of the "explanations" for our involvement in Afghanistan were true (rather than that GW was a nutcase and Obama a coward), we'd have as much justification for dropping a missile on this judge as we do on the Taliban.

The US could learn from this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44439941)

We should do the same thing to liberals here

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...