Saudi Court Sentences Vctim of Gang Rape to 90 Lashes

In 1927, following the defeat of Husayn, the British government recognized the power of the Saud family, led by Ibn Saud, over much of what is today Saudi Arabia. The Treaty of Jedda was signed on May 20. At this point he changed his title from Sultan of Nejd to King of Nejd. Initially the two parts of his dominians (Nejd in the east and Hejaz in the west) were administered generally.

From 1927 to 1932 Ibn Saud continued to consolidate power throughout the Arabian Peninsula. In March 1929 he defeated elements of the Ikhwan, which had disobeyed his orders to cease raiding and had invaded Iraq against his wishes, at the Battle of Sibilla. In 1932, having conquered most of the Peninsula, Saud renamed the area from the lands of Nejd and Hejaz to Saudi Arabia. He then proclaimed himself King of Saudi Arabia, with the support of the British government.

I met Ibn Saud when I was about 5 yrs old, he gave me a tin of english toffee. He was quite old and apparently mostly blind. My understanding is that he took much of the oil money from the english and american development and send various relatives children to private Swiss/English and american schools but did very little for the "commoner" of Saudi Arabia.

0 Replies

Excellent posts, Dys and Diane. I am most impressed with the background material.

Thanks for making this an informative and interesting thread!

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Mame wrote:
Dys, can you hazard a guess for me -- what would happen to a princess if she had been found alone with a man (and raped)?
not many years ago a princess committed adultry, this niece of the king was beheaded; The king in Saudi Arabia has little influence over internal laws.

A very notorious docudrama was made about this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/princess/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_a_Princess

Death of a Princess
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Death Of A Princess is a British 1980 docudrama, produced by ATV, about a young Saudi princess and her lover who had been publicly executed for adultery, based on the true story of Princess Misha'al.

A critically acclaimed film, it originally caused a great deal of controversy when it was shown on ITV in the UK, provoking an angry response from the Saudi government. Similarly, the US government received enormous political pressure from Saudi Arabia to censor its broadcast, and after some stalling, it was eventually broadcast by the PBS programme World in 1980.

The film was based on numerous interviews by journalist Antony Thomas who, upon first hearing the story, grew passionately curious about its veracity, soon drawing upon contacts in the Arab world for their insights and opinions. Because of the candid and sometimes critical nature of the interviews, the identities of the interviewees were obscured, and the actors chosen to replace them were based only loosely on their subjects.

Death Of A Princess depicts Thomas' focus on 'the Princess', as her story became his vehicle through which important parts of Muslim culture was revealed, showing facets of Islamic tradition, custom, society, gender and social roles, sexuality, politics, myth, and identity. In a retrospective interview for the Frontline rebroadcast, Thomas described his reasons for making the film:

'I set off to investigate this story with the idea of doing it as a drama, and gradually I realized that something completely different was developing. Where I traveled through the Arab world, the story was celebrated. Everyone had their own version of that story, all very, very different. ...Whoever I spoke to —whether they were Palestinians, whether they were conservative Saudis, whether they were radicals —they attached themselves to this princess. She'd become a myth. And they identified with her, and they kind of co-opted her to their cause. People were discussing things with me about their private lives, about their sexual feelings, about their political frustrations, that they'd never discussed with me before. ... Somehow this princess was sort of like a catalyst. And after thinking about it seriously, I thought, my gosh, this is perhaps an even more interesting story to tell.'

The film has never been re-broadcast in the UK; although a clip was shown on a 2005 BBC documentary called Imagining The Truth. It was re-broadcast in the US by Frontline in April 2005, for its 25th anniversary, under limited terms described in its original contract. Because of copyright and issues with royalties, it is not available for Internet viewing through PBS.

0 Replies

blacksmithn wrote:

And these are our allies.

Something is very, very wrong with this picture...

Of course, our enemies, like the Taliban, would have been sooo much kinder to her. They used to execute people in the Gazi soccer stadium every weekend for the tiniest infractions, even minor defects of conformity to Islam.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Sometimes it's really hard to grasp the actions of strange (to us) cultures; perhaps they should have just burned her at the stake.

Which we do so frequently these days, especially to rape victims. Yes, great point.

0 Replies

Erm, Brandon, do you think Dys approves of this beheading stuff?

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

Erm, Brandon, do you think Dys approves of this beheading stuff?

No. I think he implied that we're no better by comparing the current activities of Saudia Arabia to the actions of our distant ancestors.

0 Replies

huh?

well, now that you mention it, I don't happen to think any of us has reason to brag.

I'm a little odd on a2k in that I am not so much for any one party in any country as I am against militarily promulgated obliteration of people and lands, no matter who is doing it, us or them, whoever the 'usses' are, and whoever the 'them's are.

I have faint hope, indeed none, that we are better in the US than any other humans.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

huh?

well, now that you mention it, I don't happen to think any of us has reason to brag.

I'm a little odd on a2k in that I am not so much for any one party in any country as I am against militarily promulgated obliteration of people and lands, no matter who is doing it, us or them, whoever the 'usses' are, and whoever the 'them's are.

I have faint hope, indeed none, that we are better in the US than any other humans.

Neither do I, but to return to the point you raised, when someone responds to Saudia Arabian barbarities today by bringing up the barbarities of our ancestors, I am correct to point out that it's illogical.

0 Replies

What's illogical? we are all so-called barbarians.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

What's illogical? we are all so-called barbarians.

Attemping to demonstrate that America sucks by means of comparing someone else's present barbarity to those of our ancestors.

I don't think it's actually necessary, every time one points out some atrocity in the news by anything outside of America, to chime in with, "Oh, but America sucks too!"

0 Replies

.......by bringing up the barbarities of our ancestors, I am correct to point out that it's illogical.
.
Leftovers of cluster bombs and depleted uranium are barbarities. Our ancestors had little to do with them.
.
Nor do the torture paraphernalia in Abu Ghraib.

0 Replies

our "ancestors" saving the Vietnamese from communism with naplam, what was this childs sin?;

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/art/napalm.gif

0 Replies

Which is what I was getting at with the fact that in less than 200 years we stopped burning people at the stake. Saudi Arabia has been around much longer and is still barbaric, as are many Middle Eastern countries.

At what point do we start or stop getting in the middle of atrocities taking place in other countries? When do we (the US) stand up for women and children around the globe and when do we not? (Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Darfur)

How moral are we when whether we (the US) put on our judges robe depends on what we are getting in return? (Think oil here, or trade, or lack thereof.)

0 Replies

When a couple of "christian soldiers" seek out a gay person in Wyoming to beat to death and then tie to a fence to celebrate his death, do we remark on the inherent evil of christianity? when some drunken as*holes go out some evening to find a black man, tie him up with chains and then drag him over the streets in some town in texas until he is dead because he is black promote our own civilization? Do we then condemn "christians" in general? I hope not. The event in question in Saudi Arabia is mostly the result of theocracy, a society ruled by religious bigotry. Fortunately, the US of A is a land of civil law rather than religionists but, much of the world is not.

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

Which is what I was getting at with the fact that in less than 200 years we stopped burning people at the stake. Saudi Arabia has been around much longer and is still barbaric, as are many Middle Eastern countries.

At what point do we start or stop getting in the middle of atrocities taking place in other countries? When do we (the US) stand up for women and children around the globe and when do we not? (Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Darfur)

How moral are we when whether we (the US) put on our judges robe depends on what we are getting in return? (Think oil here, or trade, or lack thereof.)

I totally agree but we also have our own atrocities to account for. I am continuality sicken by the events in Darfur yet you might note (even here on a2k) it's not a very important issue for americans.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

When a couple of "christian soldiers" seek out a gay person in Wyoming to beat to death and then tie to a fence to celebrate his death, do we remark on the inherent evil of christianity? when some drunken as*holes go out some evening to find a black man, tie him up with chains and then drag him over the streets in some town in texas until he is dead because he is black promote our own civilization? Do we then condemn "christians" in general? I hope not. The event in question in Saudi Arabia is mostly the result of theocracy, a society ruled by religious bigotry. Fortunately, the US of A is a land of civil law rather than religionists but, much of the world is not.

When it is our courts taking these actions in the name of christian justice, rather than individual sicko's influenced by their christian upbringing and bigotry, this will be a fair comparison.

Not that I don't think that could happen here. I've thought it possible for a couple of years now given our political situation since 2000, and the Supreme Court line-up. Hopefully, we will find a little more balance on Tuesday.

0 Replies

Is it possible to look at Agent Orange as an atrocity?
..................................
In Vietnam, there are 150,000 other children like him, whose birth defects - according to Vietnamese Red Cross records - can be readily traced back to their parents' exposure to Agent Orange during the war, or the consumption of dioxin-contaminated food and water since 1975.
.
VAVA estimates that three million Vietnamese were exposed to the chemical during the war, and at least one million suffer serious health problems today.
.
Around 10,000 US war veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange receive disability benefits for various types of cancer and other serious health problems that have been linked to dioxin.

"American victims of Agent Orange will get up to $1500 a month. However most Vietnamese families affected receive around 80,000 Dong a month (just over $5 dollars) in government support for each disabled child," Professor Nhan said.
.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3798581.stm

0 Replies

ok, I quit. I'm wrong and everyone else is right.

0 Replies

Intervention in lands such as Saudi Arabia rapidly reach a point of diminishing returns. It may be good and noble to seek to correct the societal wrongs done to women, for instance. But, the resistance to our interferance might well begin another war of the scope of Iraq. When one considers how many such backward peoples there are on the globe, we could be talking millions dead in such a campaign, mostly civilians, many women and children. We ought to support movements in the right direction, seek ways to educate the barbaric. But, how much power we really have to sway other nations is clearly illustrated in Iraq, Iran, N Korea, China, and many other places. My heart aches for the people of the world, including the poor of the USA. We are not powerless to help; just don't expect any quick fixes.

0 Replies

Saudi Court Sentences Vctim of Gang Rape to 90 Lashes

Quick Links

My Account

able2know