Saudi woman gets jail (and whipped) for being gang raped

Red Lemon · 16-11-2007 12:59PM

image3440537-1.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7068616.stm

When one goes to war in the name of democracy...in my name! Does one then have the right to applaud the King and dictator of Saudi Arabia...in the name of the arms manufacturers.

If so..then the laws of Saudi Arabia, of Britain and of Ireland need to be challanged if not broken.

To whomever it is who wants to cast the first lash in Ireland....is'nt Berti Ahern up to his neck in SCUM

daveirl · 16-11-2007 12:59PM

This post has been deleted.

Terry · 16-11-2007 01:04PM

hopalong85 wrote: »

Nelson Mandela and Michael Collins were terrorists. Collins used guerilla warfare and Mandela was in the ANC. The ANC were terrorists.

Good old political brainwashing.
Using an analogy from recent times; I suppose the Iraqi soldiers who fought against the invading British and American armies were terrorists too.
Or the ones who continued to fight after the fall of Baghdad really were insurgents.

Lux23 wrote: »

She also shouldn't have been raped but you all seem more upset about her breaking segregation laws. If people don't stand up to the injustices in the world how will anything every change. Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist as was Michael Collins, the suffragettes, the american revolutionaries etc etc. Saudi is a corrupt country with archaic laws but it seems they have a get out of free jail card because of oil. Thats what is really sick.

I don't think anyone agrees with or is not sickened by the rape of this woman.
People are merely pointing out that she did break the local law.
Nobody is suggesting that this is justification for rape.

We can all sit here in our first world ivory towers and lambast the Saudis for what they are doing, but the sad fact is that not many of them know any different.
They are not all rich oil barons with mansions near the Curragh.
Most of the people are piss poor.

When people are piss poor, they tend to turn to religion. You only need to look at other poor areas in the world to see this.
The Southern United state, Mexico and all of South and central America. Most of Africa and Asia. All these places have religious fanatics who lure in the locals with promises of a rich and comfortable after-life.
The problem is that with this comes ridiculous laws. Laws which put men first and women second.

Most of these folks don't know how good we have it. All they know or care about is where their next meal is coming from.

Red Lemon · 16-11-2007 01:10PM

Most of the people are piss poor.

No there not! The people who do all the work in Saudi Arabia are usually immigrants with very few rights, coming in from Pakistan Palistine Iraq .......
The Saudi Family is Saudi Arabia!

Terry · 16-11-2007 01:12PM

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Am I missing something here?

Sharia-based laws would be similar to faith-based tribunals already permitted by the Canadian province for Catholics and Jews to use the principles of their faiths to settle family disputes.

Now I was brought up catholic, but I don't know of any laws regarding the settlement of family disputes.

But many Muslims believe that because Canada is a secular country, its legal system makes it difficult for them to govern themselves by the laws of their religion.

Aww.
When western people go to an Islamic state, they are required to obey the local laws.

hopalong85 · 16-11-2007 01:26PM

Terry wrote: »

Good old political brainwashing.
Using an analogy from recent times; I suppose the Iraqi soldiers who fought against the invading British and American armies were terrorists too.
Or the ones who continued to fight after the fall of Baghdad really were insurgents.
QUOTE]

Sorry Terry, but you would argue that the ANC weren't terrorists? You think Michael Collins' use of guerilla warfare wasn't terrorism? Terrorism is a particular type of warfare. The reasons behind terrorism are irrelevant, it is what it is. I'm not saying it's not necessary in some situations but Osama Bin Ladin is no more a terrorist than ANC leaders were during their struggle against apartheid. People might sympathise more with one cause that's all.

The Iraqi soldiers were defending their country against invading forces. The Iraqis fighting since the fall of Baghdad through car bombs etc are surely terrorists?

MrJoeSoap · 16-11-2007 01:31PM

zuutroy wrote: »

Thats ingenius. A large portion of this world really hasn't evolved too far from primates.

Or hasn't evolved at all if you believe our old AH friend estebancambias over in the Christianity forum.

Red Lemon · 16-11-2007 01:34PM

When western people go to an Islamic state, they are required to obey the local laws.

No they don't. Plans to invade Iran are not troubled by Iranian law. The decision will be based on how far the American and British think they can get away with kicking ass

Tony Danza · 16-11-2007 01:41PM

Lux23 wrote: »

Yes I am aware of that, but most would call them 'freedom fighter'. But my point is that they stood up and tried to change something, people in saudi should be doing the same.

I'm not going to claim to know a lot about Saudi Arabia but I would imagine that most of the people don't want change? Wouldn't they have been brought up to believe that this is the correct way of living for Allah?

humbert · 16-11-2007 01:51PM

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You could argue that it's their culture, but I don't like any legal system whose only required justification is a convincing interpretation of some book written over 1000 years ago.

Terry · 16-11-2007 01:52PM

hopalong85 wrote: »

Terry wrote: »

Good old political brainwashing.
Using an analogy from recent times; I suppose the Iraqi soldiers who fought against the invading British and American armies were terrorists too.
Or the ones who continued to fight after the fall of Baghdad really were insurgents.

Sorry Terry, but you would argue that the ANC weren't terrorists? You think Michael Collins' use of guerilla warfare wasn't terrorism? Terrorism is a particular type of warfare. The reasons behind terrorism are irrelevant, it is what it is. I'm not saying it's not necessary in some situations but Osama Bin Ladin is no more a terrorist than ANC leaders were during their struggle against apartheid. People might sympathise more with one cause that's all.

The Iraqi soldiers were defending their country against invading forces. The Iraqis fighting since the fall of Baghdad through car bombs etc are surely terrorists?

First off, no need to apologise. You're entitled to your opinion.

Guerilla warfare and terrorism are two seperate things.
They may use similar tactics and are closely linked, but they are not the same thing. Much like conventional warfare is similar to guerilla warfare.
The aims of all three tactics are the same: Kill people you disagree with.

As for the Iraqis still blowing stuff up, why shouldn't they?
Their country is all but under the control of an invading force.
They may have had elections, but that's just a puppet government.

Red Lemon wrote: »

When western people go to an Islamic state, they are required to obey the local laws.

No they don't. Plans to invade Iran are not troubled by Iranian law. The decision will be based on how far the American and British think they can get away with kicking ass

Instead of using colo(u)r tags, use

tags.

I don't quite know what you're getting at here.
Would you care to expand on that?

Tony Danza wrote: »

I'm not going to claim to know a lot about Saudi Arabia but I would imagine that most of the people don't want change? Wouldn't they have been brought up to believe that this is the correct way of living for Allah?

That's basically what I was trying to say.
You made it a bit clearer.

Red Lemon · 16-11-2007 01:56PM

Tony Danza wrote: »

I'm not going to claim to know a lot about Saudi Arabia but I would imagine that most of the people don't want change? Wouldn't they have been brought up to believe that this is the correct way of living for Allah?

The Saudi Family does not want change, however the Egyptian workers do!
Many Egyptians work in Saudi Arabia.

The BBC's Arab affairs analyst, Magdi Abdelhadi, says the Egyptian government, which does not tolerate dissent, is fearful of the workers' growing self-confidence.

There are fears that labour unrest might spread to other low-paid industries as it did last year, our correspondent says.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7013184.stm

Cunny-Funt · 16-11-2007 01:58PM

hopalong85 wrote: »

Terry wrote: »

Good old political brainwashing.
Using an analogy from recent times; I suppose the Iraqi soldiers who fought against the invading British and American armies were terrorists too.
Or the ones who continued to fight after the fall of Baghdad really were insurgents.
QUOTE]

Sorry Terry, but you would argue that the ANC weren't terrorists? You think Michael Collins' use of guerilla warfare wasn't terrorism? Terrorism is a particular type of warfare. The reasons behind terrorism are irrelevant, it is what it is. I'm not saying it's not necessary in some situations but Osama Bin Ladin is no more a terrorist than ANC leaders were during their struggle against apartheid. People might sympathise more with one cause that's all.

The Iraqi soldiers were defending their country against invading forces. The Iraqis fighting since the fall of Baghdad through car bombs etc are surely terrorists?

omfg,

how is using guerilla warfare terrorism? Terrorism is attacking civilians, blowing up buildings to cause panic and fear and to hurt an economic infrastrucure.

By your logic any army that is smaller then an invading army and that didnt do the old fashoned "lets all meet up in a field and charge at each other" tactic are terrorists?

Using guerilla tactics to attack enemy forces is NOT terrorism. It only when they start using suicde bombs and blowing up civiliians all over the place that its terrorism.

I suppose you think the vietcong were terrorists too eh? ffs:rolleyes::rolleyes:

ionapaul · 16-11-2007 02:02PM

Who knows what the average Saudi wants - the country is a dictatorship/absolute monarchy, the only people whose opinions matter are those in the House of Saud. The royal family has more political power than Charles I had in 1640s, and he got his head chopped off for his tyranny! The 'average' Saudi doesn't matter, sad to say.

hopalong85 · 16-11-2007 02:15PM

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

hopalong85 wrote: »

omfg,

how is using guerilla warfare terrorism? Terrorism is attacking civilians, blowing up buildings to cause panic and fear and to hurt an economic infrastrucure.

By your logic any army that is smaller then an invading army and that didnt do the old fashoned "lets all meet up in a field and charge at each other" tactic are terrorists?

Using guerilla tactics to attack enemy forces is NOT terrorism. It only when they start using suicde bombs and blowing up civiliians all over the place that its terrorism.

I suppose you think the vietcong were terrorists too eh? ffs:rolleyes::rolleyes:

You're right, using guerilla warfare is not the same as terrorism. I shouldn't have implied that. The use of terror isn't exactly unheard of in guerilla warfare though. I think your definition of terrorism is a bit simple. It isn't really that black and white. If a terrorist group blows up an embassy killing government officials is that a terrorist attack? Or does the fact that civilians don't die make it guerilla warfare?

Oh yeah, and you should chill, it's Friday!

Terry · 16-11-2007 02:19PM

hopalong85 wrote: »

You're right, using guerilla warfare is not the same as terrorism. I shouldn't have implied that. The use of terror isn't exactly unheard of in guerilla warfare though. I think your definition of terrorism is a bit simple. It isn't really that black and white. If a terrorist group blows up an embassy killing government officials is that a terrorist attack? Or does the fact that civilians don't die make it guerilla warfare?

Oh yeah, and you should chill, it's Friday!

What would you call this?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Iraq_War

Conventional war or terrorism?

The terminology suggests terrorism.

azezil · 16-11-2007 02:36PM

While I pity the poor girl, clearly the laws are there for good reason, she rode in the car of an unrelated man and got gang raped!

I couldn't help but snigger at the judges decision to punish her for trying to use the media to influence their decision tho! *grin* Rightly so IMO!

Mr. Incognito · 16-11-2007 02:37PM

Terrorism is attacking civilians, blowing up buildings to cause panic and fear and to hurt an economic infrastrucure.

According to this the American and British bombing of most of Europe in WW2 is terrorism, the invasion of Iraq is terrorism etc.

I think a more appropriate yardstick is that terrorism is an action or offensive campaign carried out by a person, group or army in view of a particular aim and whom are not part of a countries standing army. e.g groups operating outside the law. A countries army when carrying out an offensive action is seen as furthering it's own territorial ambitions or defending that nation from attack.

It's easy to identify a countries army, terrorism is a bit murkier. Essentially it all depends on perspective. Michael Collins is an Irish freedom fighter but was a terrorist to the British government. Then he was commander of the Irish free staters and was somehow legitimised as part of a government.

Personally I'm a pacifist and I think the whole thing is bull. People fighting over land as if we own it. The land was here before man and it'll be here after but I'm not going down that road. Saudi is a country run by religious extremists. You cannot hold our value system out to theirs and vice versa. You cannot force a foreign culture to submit to your value system and i'd argue that you shouldn't be entitled to. The original post was misleading and I see it re-created on yahoo and a few more sites posted in the same proganda vein. She was punished for breaking segregation laws. She was also gang raped, whilst the two are indirectly related they do not amount to the same thing.

If we go down the right/wrong road it's subjective and we'll be here all day. I have no intention of arguing the point with anyone, just putting in my two cents. She broke the local laws and was punished. Short of going around invading countries and subjecting a foreign people to adopt foreign values (which takes a few hundred years of occupation and inter-breeding it seems judging by history) we have no right to judge the way those people have elected to govern themselves.

ferdi · 16-11-2007 02:38PM

200 lashes...that could easily kill her by itself...

this shyte sickens me...i hope god will punish them.

Red Lemon · 16-11-2007 02:43PM

War is terror! George Bush is the biggest terrorist on the planet.

Dave! · 16-11-2007 02:45PM

ferdi wrote: »

i hope god will punish them.

two chances of that........

daveirl · 16-11-2007 02:46PM

This post has been deleted.

Red Lemon · 16-11-2007 02:52PM

"Saudi is a country run by religious extremists." Setantal

No more observant of their religious princibles than your average Bishop in civvies.

Dudess · 16-11-2007 02:54PM

Even though Hill Billy is dead right to point out the inaccuracies in the thread heading, women living under Sharia law have been punished (jailed, beaten, killed even) for having the impudence to report being raped, AND because they have had extra-marital sex - the fact that it's not consensual is, it seems, not important. It's apparently widespread in Pakistan: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/parliament/3251/spring99/pakistan.html

The_Minister · 16-11-2007 03:01PM

Hill Billy wrote: »

Hold your bleedin' horses there! She did not get jailed & whipped for being gang raped.

She got jailed & lashed for "violating laws on segregation of the sexes" & for attempting to influence the judiciary.

The men who gang-raped her also had their sentences doubled.

I just want to take the time to thank you for being calm, rational, and not losing your head.
Everyone who has told me about this storey has basically said, "she was jailed for being raped!!!11!!eleven!! OMG!" and then got really pissed when I told them this wasn't quite true. Then they go quiet and go "oh" when told that the men got their sentences doubled too. Then they go even quieter. Then they shake their heads and walk off to tell someone else about the case, dribbling exclamation marks as they go.
It's always nice to see someone look behind the hype, to the real story.

She was raped. It's a pity. She was not jailed for it though.

SimpleSam06 · 16-11-2007 03:03PM

Terry wrote: »

We can all sit here in our first world ivory towers and lambast the Saudis for what they are doing, but the sad fact is that not many of them know any different.

They are not all rich oil barons with mansions near the Curragh.
Most of the people are piss poor.

This is factually incorrect. Saudi Arabians generally enjoy a decent standard of living, due in large part to government programs designed to minimize poverty. Saudi citizens are given free education (although enrollment is not required and has historically been low, accounting for relatively high illiteracy rates) and health care, and all adult Saudis are entitled to a plot of land and a loan of US$80,000 with which to build a house. Sauid Arabia also boats over 120,000 millionaires.

So what we have here is a wealthy (and fairly evenly distributed wealth) country with poor literacy and education rates. What does that sound like to you?

Terry wrote: »

When people are piss poor, they tend to turn to religion.

The same could be said of the wilfully ignorant.

Terry wrote: »

All they know or care about is where their next meal is coming from.

In Saudi Arabia, probably a high class kosher restaurant.

Red Lemon wrote: »

No they don't. Plans to invade Iran are not troubled by Iranian law. The decision will be based on how far the American and British think they can get away with kicking ass

This is also incorrect. The decision to invade Iran will probably mostly be based upon the steps that Iran takes to move away from the dollar as the de facto oil currency. It was when Saddam began to move to the Euro that he got invaded, after all.

ferdi wrote: »

200 lashes...that could easily kill her by itself...

They scale it over several weeks.

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

Terrorism is attacking civilians, blowing up buildings to cause panic and fear and to hurt an economic infrastrucure.

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

SimpleSam06 · 16-11-2007 03:08PM

The_Minister wrote: »

Then they go quiet and go "oh" when told that the men got their sentences doubled too.

Just out of interest does that make their sentences measurable in weeks, months, or years? The saddest part is that I have to ask that question.

Dudess · 16-11-2007 03:16PM

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I can't help but find that ironic, given your respect for the right of free speech no matter how much it gets abused (e.g. the Phelps). Now I'm not having a personal go at you but it does seem inconsistent to me.

Voodu Child · 16-11-2007 03:23PM

Here's the picture of when they caught her in another mans vehicle:

Link

The_Minister · 16-11-2007 03:25PM

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Just out of interest does that make their sentences measurable in weeks, months, or years? The saddest part is that I have to ask that question.

IIRC that brings the longest sentence up to ten years, but I'm open to correction.

EDIT: LOL @ Voodoochild

Saudi woman gets jail (and whipped) for being gang raped

Comments