1
   

Saudi Court Sentences Vctim of Gang Rape to 90 Lashes

 
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Nov, 2006 07:59 am
Laughing

Don't quit, silly. Your insight is unique here. We haven't been there and you have. Keep in mind that I'm originally from Missouri - the Show Me state. Drive's Bear nuts, too.

Your original statement brought up in my mind that we should do something to stop this, but then where would we draw the line? There is so much of this kind of inhumanity and injustice going on that it becomes a slippery slope of where to intervene and where not to.

IMO, Darfur is way past due for intervention. But, we also seem to have recently lost our moral high ground for being able to do so.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Nov, 2006 08:12 am
dyslexia wrote:
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.


and if the neo-cons and right wing christian nutbars have their way, who knows the you guys may be burning people at the stake again
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Nov, 2006 12:57 pm
Did anyone bother to read the links dlowan provided? She included an excerpt, but the links, especially the first one, have so much more information that is quite relevant to this discussion.

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

I have included part of the excerpt Deb had and added more in case no one wants to bother with a link....

Quote:
So in the beginning, you set out to make it as a drama?

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.


Quote:
Why not do this as a normal documentary?

Because I couldn't have a single interview in it. There was not one person I spoke to, with the exception of a Palestinian family I know very well, who would agree to appear in this film. So it was absolutely understood that "Everything I'm telling you now, Antony, is in confidence. You will never refer to me; you will never expose me, will you?" You couldn't make a documentary. It was impossible. You'd have a whole array of people with their voices distorted and bags on their heads, and that wouldn't make a very good film.


Quote:
One of the people I spoke to about the princess' story, it was a woman from Jordan who was a university lecturer. And we talked about that story, and it sparked something in her. And for six hours, she talked about her childhood as a girl in Jordan, experiences she'd had with a maid who had set fire to herself when she was pregnant because there was no way to deal with that.

Josephine and I talked for six hours. She got very, very emotional. And that same afternoon, I traveled to Cairo, [Egypt]. When I arrived, there was a telegram from her husband, who said that she'd committed suicide. Now, there was a lot of backstory to that -- her marriage was in trouble -- but I often wonder whether all that emotional stirring that happened as we talked about the princess wasn't in some small, eventful way a contributing factor to her decision she took to take her life.


So, as can be seen, this is about human beings and the obvious danger of a government run by the church instead of a secular government with checks and balances. By painting it all with a wide brush, the real people involved are never acknowledged; the story is simply given a name of savage, backward, without looking at the courageous people involved who are trying to make a change even though they are risking their lives.

Niether Bob nor I were trying to excuse the Saudis or any of the other religious extremist governments. We were just trying to point out that real people are always involved, regardless of the horrible gravity of the situation or the insularity of the government which allows this kind of thing to happen.

Whether it is an entire society that accepts brutality or just parts here and there that accept lynching or brutalizing gays, there is always the possibility of that behavior lurking just below the surface in any society.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Nov, 2006 01:03 pm
No peoples on the planet are exempt from such behavior.
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Nov, 2006 01:41 pm
I read the links, Diane, and I'm finding this discussion fascinating. I confess, I've never been able to see beyond the sheer brutality before. But then, I've never talked to anyone who has any real understanding of Saudi culture.

So...given that their culture has begun to change in the last 75 years...where do you believe they will go from here? Should we expect them to continue changing, and at what rate? Would pressure from the outside world be an effective catalyst, or would it simply solidify their fears of change?
0 Replies
 
detano inipo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Nov, 2006 03:20 pm
To win the hearts and minds of Muslims is impossible. Their minds are locked in the Koran. Blind faith is safe from openmindedness and understanding.
.
And when the Western preacher is not squeaky clean, the task is impossible.
.
PS. Introducing democracy with 'shock and awe' is doomed to failure.
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Nov, 2006 05:23 pm
Oh, I agree with that!

I wasn't thinking of religious or political change so much as cultural change, though.

First Dys wrote:
Saudi Arabia is a culture that until 75 years ago was living in the 12th century. That same culture has had everything it knew turned upside down in the space of a couple of generations. 99.99% of the population have never been in a house let alone lived in one, never even heard of a toilet or running clean water, read a book or attended a classroom.


Then Diane wrote:
...It will take time for such a restrictive culture to come to a more equitable way of punishing crime or to realize that women don't deserve to be punished for being victimized.


However small the changes may look through our eyes, it seems as though some incremental changes may be taking place. I'm wondering how long Dys thinks it will take (if ever) before they're living in the same century as us. Or at least close enough for us to relate.
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Nov, 2006 05:31 pm
Detano pretty well answered your question, Eva.

When Dys was there as a little boy, the local Arabs would bring their camels over for the Christians to use during Christmas in the living creche they put up. That was mainly the kind of Muslim that had an openess and a desire to get along.

"Shock and awe" would get anyone's back up, but for radical Muslims, I can't for the life of me understand how this president thought they would greet us with open arms. It has only served to increase the radicalism in the area. This war has been unbearably tragic in every way.

What I have wondered for the last several years is whether the radical movement will continue to increase or, like the evangelical movements here in the States, it will go too far for the citizens to accept and die a slow death. I have my doubts, since radical muslims want to control everything down to the slightest detail. I remember reading that the Taliban would beat a woman if the wind happened to lift up the hem of her burka enough to show her ankles. Moderate Islam isn't anything like the psychotic preachings of the Taliban.
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Nov, 2006 05:52 pm
I think we're all on the same page about the stupidity/futility of GWB's tactics, but that really wasn't what I was talking about. Guess I'm not having much success making my thoughts clear. Oh well.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Nov, 2006 07:19 pm
I would think education would be key over shock and awe. Like Turkey and Iran, I think the more "mingling" that takes place, and the more exposure to outside culture the better as far as bringing them into the current century. It will take education and time.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Nov, 2006 07:36 pm
squinney wrote:
I would think education would be key over shock and awe. Like Turkey and Iran, I think the more "mingling" that takes place, and the more exposure to outside culture the better as far as bringing them into the current century. It will take education and time.


Two of the greatest helps in educating people with these customs are, in my opinion, immigration and the internet. Right now, the internet is restricted in many nations, but it can still help. The immigrants of course, will see first hand and eventually some of it may rub off on them. They in turn communicate the new attitudes to family back home.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 12:16 am
detano inipo wrote:
.......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.

All bad comparisons. Left over bombs are bad, but not atrocities. Most likely every participant in every war since the invention of exposives has had left over bombs. Punishing a rape victim, however, is an atrocity. The soldiers who tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib were acting against orders and are being punished. How in the world does this compare to a Saudi Court ordering 90 lashes for a rape victim?

Furthermore, even if these had been valid compaisons, why would it be necessary every time someone mentions an atrocity by non-Americans to reflexively chime in, "America sucks too?"
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 06:01 am
"Left over bombs are bad, but not atrocities."

Snort! Lost my coffee over that one.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 07:29 am
Of course no one has mentioned that here in the US we still put people to death.

We just claim it is humane to do it the way we do it.

No we aren't that far from whipping women for adultery. We just redefine our barbarism as enlightenment.

How long ago was it that a political leader in the US said this?
"If a women is getting raped she should just lie back and enjoy it."
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 07:56 am
Brandon9000 wrote:


Furthermore, even if these had been valid compaisons, why would it be necessary every time someone mentions an atrocity by non-Americans to reflexively chime in, "America sucks too?"

This isn't about "America sucks". It is about defining barbarism. Different cultures define it differently as Dys pointed out. If you want to make it about "America sucks", go ahead. It shows you don't have a brain in that body of yours. You are so willing to defend your country and your own actions that you can't see anything past your nose. What do you consider putting children to death Brandon? Is it something civilized countries should do? The US is one of very few countries that actually applies the death penalty to children under the age of 18. Is that "civilized" in your world?

Barbarism is a relative term. Saudi Arabia has a law that they enforced. Why does that make them barbaric? It only does because it doesn't fit your world view. The problem with stupid people is that they can't see anything from anyone else's point of view.




One country whips an adult woman for breaking the law.
Another country kills a child for breaking the law.

Which country is more barbaric and why?

We see the barbarism in our own country every day. We will see it again tomorrow as people vote to deny rights to part of our population. We just pretend we are doing it for the good of the people. The same thing they do in Saudi Arabia.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 09:39 am
Dys
Dys, I hope you will return and tell me what the muslim areas were like before the age of Mohammed?

I think the common people were largely nomads, but I recall that the areas had a rich intellectual history. They were early discovers in mathmatics and science. I don't recall the religions of the areas during the intellectual periods. What was it about Mohammed that set the areas on a different path?

BBB
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 09:55 am
edgarblythe wrote:
"Left over bombs are bad, but not atrocities."

Snort! Lost my coffee over that one.

Yeah.

I guess one's thinking on this kind of depends on whether it's your kid's hand that gets blown off.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 10:11 am
This is an easy to read middle east history site:

http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/articles/worldhistory/introancientmiddleeast1.htm
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 10:36 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
detano inipo wrote:
.......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.

All bad comparisons. Left over bombs are bad, but not atrocities. Most likely every participant in every war since the invention of exposives has had left over bombs.

And if Detano's appeal to history is a logical fallacy, then so is yours.
0 Replies
 
detano inipo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 12:58 pm
Quote: Most likely every participant in every war since the invention of exposives has had left over bombs.
.
Ordinary duds and bombs are slightly dangerous.
.
Cluster bomb leftovers are like landmines. They lie around randomly and therefore are more dangerous. Kids pick them up and lose their hands and faces.
.
I dug out WW2 bombs and duds, we had no casualties from them.
.
When DU smashes into a hard target, it pulverizes into breathable dust that remains radioactive for 4.5 billion years. American nuclear scientists have found that DU dust can travel at least 26 miles.
.
http://www.merip.org/mer/mer215/215_peterson.html
0 Replies
 
 

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/03/2025 at 10:42:15