Pakistan

Trackside,

Do you think that Washington DC has anywhere near the same level of federal representation as the rest of the country?

They have no representation in Congress or the Senate. They have a non voting member in the House of Representatives. Although they can elect their own Mayor and council, this is somewhat tempered by the fact that Congress can (and often does) have the final power of review over all local matters, due to the 10th amendment not being applied.

I wouldn't be happy about it if I lived there, would you?
 
Lest you forget who Queenie gave a lovely British welcome to last month. Summary, a 19 year old woman was raped and sodomised 14 times, as was an unrelated male companion. She is rewarded with 6 months in jail and 200 lashes.

Saudi Rape Victim Gets 200 Lashes
Court Says 19-Year-Old Woman Improperly Used Media To Influence Case
Comments 0
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, Nov. 16, 2007

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(CBS/AP) A Saudi court sentenced a woman who had been gang raped to six months in jail and 200 lashes - more than doubling her initial penalty for being in the car of a man who was not a relative, a newspaper reported Thursday.

The decision by the Qatif General Court came in a case that had sparked rare debate about the kingdom's justice system when it surfaced more than a year ago.

In its decision Wednesday, the court also roughly doubled prison sentences for the seven men convicted of raping the 19-year-old woman, the Arab News reported on its English-language Web site.

According to Arab News, the court said the woman's punishment was increased because of "her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media."

The New York Times reported that her lawyer, Abdulrahman al-Lahem, is a well-known human rights activist who angered the court by publicly criticizing the verdict. He said the verdict was too lenient for the rapists and unjust for the victim.

The victim had initially been sentenced to 90 lashes after being convicting her of violating Saudi's rigid laws on segregation of the sexes.

Under Saudi Arabia's interpretation of Islamic Sharia law, women are not allowed in public in the company of men other than their male relatives.

The court also banned her lawyer from defending her, confiscated his license to practice law and summoned him to a disciplinary hearing later this month.

The initial sentences for the men convicted of the gang rape ranged from 10 months to five years in prison. Their new sentences range from two to nine years, the paper said.

The attack took place in 2006. The woman has said that it occurred as she tried to retrieve her picture from a male high school student she used to know. While in the car with the student, two men got into the vehicle and drove them to a secluded area. She said she was raped there by seven men, three of whom also attacked her friend.

Reports of the story triggered debate about Saudi Arabia's legal system, in which judges have wide discretion in punishing a criminal, rules of evidence are shaky and sometimes no defense lawyers are present. The result, critics say, are sentences left to the whim of judges.

The judges, appointed by the king, have a wide discretion in handing down sentences, often said to depend on their whim. A rapist, for instance, could receive anywhere from a light or no sentence, to death.

The woman was identified in the media only as the Girl from Qatif. The case was referred back to the General Court by an appeals court last summer, after her lawyer went public with his criticism of the verdict.
 
Do you really think the likes of Iran and Syria were in favour of deposing Saddam to install a liberal democracy Clive? Come on now..
Click to expand...

errr yes i do

I think Iran was very nervous indeed about a heavily armed Iraq. They have had recent experience of Saddams adventures too

Saudi definately welcomed the end of saddam as did jordan if i recall rightly.

The nearest thing (apart from israel) to a democarcy in the region is Turkey

Do those nations fear Turkey?
 
And it not just "our queenie" is it an crap?

Enterprise Ireland is organising a Trade Mission to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, to be led by An Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern T.D. and will include visits to Riyadh and Dubai.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are among the two most important markets for Irish exporters in the Middle East and Gulf region. In the first half of 2006, there has been a significant increase in exports to the region, with indications of an increase of 45% plus.

Key regional features are:

Strong economic performance driven by oil revenues, booming tourism, property development, and net immigration.

Significant state capital expenditure in Healthcare, Education, Utilities, Civil Construction, Water and Environmental sectors.

An increasing number of Irish companies have opened offices in Dubai, using Dubai as a hub to develop regional business and achieve the vital first reference site. Direct air links have improved access over the last 6 months.

Liberalisation of the telecoms, banking and insurance, and education markets.
In addition to market development work, the Trade Mission will allow Enterprise Ireland clients to participate with their customers and market contacts in Business Breakfasts in Riyadh and Dubai with An Taoiseach as the guest of honour.

Companies can invite a number of their clients/market contacts to attend these events. This format has proved to be an effective networking tool for clients in other locations and allows for clients' networking requirements during the course of An Taoiseach's visit.

Companies which have significant announcements in the course of the Trade Mission can avail of a full PR service to capitalise on their success. It is essential to discuss the announcement in advance with Enterprise Ireland Dubai personnel in advance of the Mission.

Depending on the extent of your business interests in the region, you may choose to participate in one or both of the Business Breakfasts events
Click to expand...
 
Not a good example Colin when comparing Saddam to a (sort of) liberal democracy such as Turkey
 
Yes.

Without having details to hand, (and i might be wrong)the Iraqi parliament was constituted to ensure that minorities such as the Kurds were not alienated and were active participants.

Somewhat better than being gassed....

He hasnt promised them their own nation of course, but how could he? That would involve rather more than sectioning off a part of Iraq
 
Says a lot about you an cap that you had to turn this debate into a sneer at the british but once given an example of your nation behaing in exactly the same way....

That is the level of your response

Pathetic really

As it happens, i would rather that we had nothing at all to do with countries such as Saudi arabia. Unfortunately they are rather large clients and very important suppliers to the west. It would be a brave country that would completely ditch them

Braver than Ireland and the UK
 
Don't get me wrong CliveX- I think our government are hungry cnuts for touching this lot. I just happened to read the piece I cut and paste today so it was on my mind.

Now aside from that - how long did you serve in NI?
 
Never been there!

Ok...we are agreed on that then :)

That enactment of "Sharia law" (whcih some of the left here believe we must "understand") last week was deeply repulsive. Absolutely disgusting....

Dont get me started.....

and this is from someone who Ken Livingstone promotes and the goverment were discussing issues with until recently (Ruth Kelly took a decent stance)

Is stoning ever justified? "It depends what sort of stoning and what circumstances,"
Click to expand...

There u go....got me started :)
 
I think there's a massive over look regarding the Iran and Iraq war, which makes the Bush invasion all the more perplexing.

In the first case the US recognised that Iraq was essentially a secular state and was desperate to avoid the spread of Islamic expansion. Surely it is no coincidence that within 12 months of the Islamic revolution in Tehran, and nervous Saddam (with US prompting) invaded Iran. The concept that Iran was scarred of Iraq doesn't really stand up. It's quite the opposite, Iraq was scarred of Iran and the threat posed to Saddam by the growth of Islam.

Saddam was no radical Islamist, and recognised that in order to hold his fragile country together he needed to surpress the growth of Islamism, if it were allowed to get a root in Iraq it posed a threat to him on top of the various tribal and ethnic divisions. In short, if the US was looking for a natural ally in the region who shared their concerns about the spread of radical Islam it was none other than Saddam. He had more to fear from Islamism than the US.

Prior to the Bush mis-calculation (if indeed that's what it was) the only group operating out of Iraq was Ansar al Islam. They were operating in the North under the cover of the safe haven and no fly zone where Saddam couldn't get at them. Today of course, AQ are pretty well ensconced in the country. It doesn't require a giant leap in imagination to put the two together. The one person who had established a rule of iron and was capable of preventing radical Islam gaining a foothold with his well honed secret police, was removed from power in the name of a war on terror. shrug:: It's a no brainer!!!

This of course leads one to the next conclusion, which most of us tend to agree with to differing degrees, and that's that the invasion had little, if indeed anything, to do with the war on terror. By 2003 it was obvious that the Iranian military was superior to the depleted, sanctioned, and largely destroyed Iraqi. Saddam needed to keep up the pre-text that he possessed a capability in order to frighten domestic opposition, as well as neighbouring countries. In truth he was very vulnerable, and posed no threat to Iran, who possessed a greater capability as well as a bigger population.

Put simply, if the US believed that there was a danger developing in the region, and one that would support the largely shi'ite AQ, they invaded the wrong country. Saddam did embrace some Koranic lettering on the flag, and was clearly happier to be seen at prayers than had hitherto been the case, but this was clearly an attempt to appeal to a wider Arab constiuency aka Nassar. His own personal lifestyle suggested he was far from being a good muslim, and so far as I read it, he was very much a political dictator who would respond to pragmatism in the name of survival. He was never likely to whip up a movement which if it ever took hold, would in all likelihood pose a credible threat to his own dictatorship and quite probably life, given how he surpressed radical clerics himself.
 
The Kurds are being shat on to such an extent that the authorities don't do anything about 1,000 men ganging up on an innocent girl and stoning her to death (whilst filming it all to put on youtube). The crime being talking to a boy she wasn't married to.

Oh and after retaliation bombings our government minister David Miliband says ""The reports of the violence in Northern Iraq, whose origin has not yet been established, are a murderous blow against the Iraqi people by those who seek only destruction".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du%27a_Khalil_Aswad - the site contains graphic pictures.

Sorry but the above doesn't appear to have been reported at all in the UK which I think is an absolute disgrace considering we were attempting to sort out Iraq and our own ministers are totally ignoring what's happening. That's not to say that similar things don't happen in the UK - we have charities for everything but there seems to be very little being done about "honour killings".

This just really makes me mad :angy:
 
Saw that video and read the story

Truely horrible....


Is stoning ever justified? "It depends what sort of stoning and what circumstances,"
Click to expand...

The Muslim council of Britain Nov 2007
 
That is truly abhorrent.

This is the sort of thing that the UK/USA should be attempting to do something about (in their self appointed roles as the World police) instead of going to war with Iraq under false pretences. By 'do something about' I do not mean declare war - but through campaigning and political pressure.

However, it's only a few hundred years (if even!) removed from when acts like this (maybe not quite so sickening) were perpetrated in our own countries. By what right do we impose our own morals and beliefs on that of others? We in the 'enlightened' west will always find images such as these horrifying - but that doesn't mean others will, or even should, given that is part of the rule of law in many places.

What we cannot allow is this to occur in our own countries - these are the places in which our moral values (such as they are) and laws apply.
 
By what right do we impose our own morals and beliefs on that of others? We in the 'enlightened' west will always find images such as these horrifying - but that doesn't mean others will, or even should, given that is part of the rule of law in many places.
Click to expand...

You are having a laugh surely

In am quite comfortable with believing that our morals and beliefs in the west are superior to those that advocate

- stoning of women for daring to talk to a stranger

- flogging of victims of rape

- hanging of teenagers for homosexuality

- murder of those that dare to write novels

- the genocide of a particular race

The west is not perfect by any means but the (left wing) garbage that we should not "judge" or even dare hold an opinion is frankly racist, because it can only be presumed on the basis that "they dont know any better"

and what would these appeasers have said of the nazi genocide of the jews?

" we have to understand their ways and its not for us to judge"

pol pot?

" we have to understand their ways and its not for us to judge"

Stalin? Mao?

" we have to understand their ways and its not for us to judge"
 
The dictators you quote got to power how exactly? By imposing their wills (or the collective wills of a group) on others.

And what part of my post referred to not holding an opinion? I made my opinions clear, and stated that we should find such acts abhorrent - care to read the second paragraph?

We're clearly not discussing genocide here. But don't let that interfere with your usual anti-left agenda, which you seem to think applies to every single conversation you enter into.
 
We in the 'enlightened' west will always find images such as these horrifying - but that doesn't mean others will, or even should, given that is part of the rule of law in many places
Click to expand...

Or even should?

Its too much to expect the simpleton kurds to think again about the morality breaking rocks on a young girls head for daring to converse with a boy?

Or is iit not our place to judge because this is carried out in the name of a religion?

I sneer at the hard left because it is only from this (thankfully rapidly declining) section of society that we hear this sort of drivel

the rule of law in nazi germany was the extermination of the jews (although unlike Hezbollah, they did not explicitly signal that beforehand). and the nazis were not a "group" "imposing their wills". They had rather a lot of support

But it would have been none of our business to hold an opinion on Belsen would it?
 
But the war with Hitler was entered into because of what was happening to the Jews, was it.

Do you think that if that was the 'only' thing that Hitler and were guilty of that Britain would still have gone to war with Germany?

I don't know the answer to that question, and I am not saying that they wouldn't, but would they have?
 
Off you go on your genocide/left rant again... EVERY post :)

It is quite clear that the West holds an opinion on Belsen - Israel?

"Or even should" refers to the following - if you told the people who carried it out or even bore witness to it that it was morally wrong, they would think you were mad. It is their law and how they have been raised to be.

It should be our responsibility to educate others to reach our standards or morals (aren't we great) - but we should not do this by forcing them to do so. This is what I am saying. I don't exactly hear any of our leaders coming out and condemning things like this - instead they scurry around protecting their own asses and invading other countries with no provocation.

I really can't say this any simpler. Do you get what I mean now or should I prefer for yet another post about genocide, about which you are the only one talking?
 
Back
Top