Ship of Fools: Saudi Spinal Tap

Thread: Saudi Spinal Tap Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025097

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

The Saudi twats who want to deliberately slice someone’s spinal cord to cripple them.

Story here... BBC Spinal Story

Still, we must interfere in their culture must we? We mustn’t be all imperialistic about this?

They are fucktards and anyone who defends their “right” to do this sort of thing is also a fucktard.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

We already interfere in their culture. We sell the Saudi government/moncarchy substantial arms to maintain their military might and make them our chief ally in the region.

The only problem is that our current MO of interference doesn't seem like a force for good.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Erm - Deano - is anyone actually saying that we mustn't interfere in their culture and be all imperialistic?

Do let me know if anyone is, there's a good chap. I do know that one or two people in the Daily Mail comments think the Saudis have the right idea, but I suspect that's not the sort of thing you were talking about.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Horrendous though this proposal is, there are plenty of people in the West who argue that 'the punishment should fit the crime.'

Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :

Quite a few were calling for a certain local trio to be burned to death only yesterday...

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by deano:

quote:

Still, we must interfere in their culture must we? We mustn’t be all imperialistic about this?

Do you get all imperialistic and interfering about the death penalty in the United States?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by deano:

quote:

Still, we must interfere in their culture must we? We mustn’t be all imperialistic about this?

Do you get all imperialistic and interfering about the death penalty in the United States?

Like the American death-penalty, the Saudi spine-breaking is something that I'd be against, would probably oppose if I lived there, wouldn't want for my own country, but it's not quite a deal-breaker for me in terms of regarding the country as a respectable global citizen.

I mean, executing murderers, like they do in the US, isn't quite the same thing as executing, say, shoplifters. There is a certain moral logic to saying that the criminal should suffer the same agony that he inflicted upon others, and I can understand how a reasonable(if misguided) person could support it. Same with this case in Saudi Arabia, where the criminal in question DID in fact break someone else's spine. We're not talking about a woman having her spine broken for driving a car.

And I'll go even further and say that breaking the spine of a spine-breaker, in a case where you know with 100% certainty that the guy is guilty, is less problematic for me than executing a murderer in a case where there is even slight room for doubt.

[ 05. April 2013, 17:21: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

I'm anti-death penalty as surprising as it may seem.

I think it's quite simply wrong, and does nothing for anyone except give society-at-large a sense of revenge, which isn't a good enough reason for the UK to kill someone for.

But I do remember the howls of outrage when Saddam was hanged. So many people form the west said it was barbaric and we should "do something". Which was ironic as those self-same people were self-righteously moralising about how the west should not interfere during the Gulf Wars.

So military imperialism is wrong but judicial imperialism is just fine.

I'm quite happy to interfere in any countries affairs if the reasoning is sound. Hacking someones spine to pieces in revenge is one of those reasons.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Saudi deals in oil, we are dependant oil. We do sometimes ponder the fact that Saudi has human right issues .
Having filled up our cars with fuel and turned up the heating to watch our favourite TV programme we don't like to overly worry about such unpleasant matters .

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I'm quite happy to interfere in any countries affairs if the reasoning is sound. Hacking someones spine to pieces in revenge is one of those reasons.

What sort of interference did you have in mind? A full scale invasion? A disapproving look? Or withholding the next shipment of bunker-buster bombs?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

I read an article the other say about how Saudi Arabia was taking small steps towards having a tourism industry (but they're still years away from issuing tourist visas.) I don't think I'll be visiting any time soon.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I think I went off them when schoolgirls were prevented from escaping from a burning building because they were not in correct Islamic dress.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I'm quite happy to interfere in any countries affairs if the reasoning is sound. Hacking someones spine to pieces in revenge is one of those reasons.

But apparently it's fine if someone who isn't the government does it. Or at least, they shouldn't be punished appropriately for doing it.

I like this Saudi law. Do unto criminals what try did unto others. It's fair.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

I like this Saudi law. Do unto criminals what try did unto others. It's fair.

I don't. Not because of what it does to the criminal, but because of what it does to us.

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

Now you've got me all curious. What does it do to us? Or is that the royal 'us'? (As in "Us is not amused.")

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Might be worth considering that someone is going to have to take care of this newly paralyzed person too, probably several someones, and unless he's fabulously wealthy that will mean a lifetime sentence for his family.

On another point-- i believe he was fourteen when he stabbed his friend. Surely that's worth taking into account, too.

Me, I'd be tempted to sentence him to lifetime caretaking of a quadriplegic, seems to fit justice a bit better. And surely someone can use the help.

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

I'm having a little trouble wrapping my head around the 'stabbing his friend' part. But no doubt it's part of the culture - like throwing shoes at people.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

Me, I'd be tempted to sentence him to lifetime caretaking of a quadriplegic, seems to fit justice a bit better. And surely someone can use the help.

and what did the quadriplegic do to get that sentence?

(I otherwise agree, at least on the surface. but I know I'd be pretty offended to be someone's "sentence")

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

Talk about Nurse Ratched.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

No, no. Take volunteers who want a slave (and supervise him well!) The paralyzed person is nobody's sentence, what he'd be doing is allowing the jerk to make partial restitution. And be useful. You can't convince me that there are no extremely poor fooks in such a situation who wouldn't find him a godsend. Hell, find a facility serving such people and let him make himself useful.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

Retributive versus restorative justice. Me, I fall on the restorative side- unless it's an offence against me. Then it's retributive all the way.

Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
... unless he's fabulously wealthy ...

It seems unlikely:

quote:
Saudi media reports earlier said the 24-year-old man could be paralysed from the waist down if he could not pay his victim £250,000 in compensation.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I'm quite happy to interfere in any countries affairs if the reasoning is sound. Hacking someones spine to pieces in revenge is one of those reasons.
But apparently it's fine if someone who isn't the government does it. Or at least, they shouldn't be punished appropriately for doing it.

I like this Saudi law. Do unto criminals what try did unto others. It's fair.

But it isn't useful. You end up with 2 paralysed people instead of 1. It's the best real world illustration of "an eye for an eye means we all go blind" I could wish for.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

Until now.

Posted by anglocatholic (# 13804) on :

It may not be politically correct to say so, but Islam is a barbaric religion!

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

Is it really? Compared to something else like Catholicism maybe?

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Is it really? Compared to something else like Catholicism maybe?

well, that was unexpected.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I'm quite happy to interfere in any countries affairs if the reasoning is sound. Hacking someones spine to pieces in revenge is one of those reasons.
But apparently it's fine if someone who isn't the government does it. Or at least, they shouldn't be punished appropriately for doing it.

I like this Saudi law. Do unto criminals what try did unto others. It's fair.

Even if the criminal was a child when the offence was committed, as was the case in this situation?

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

A justice system has to operate from outside the situations on which it adjudicates: this is surely the only way in which it acquires any legitimacy at all. If it operates on the basis of "what might a drunk, rather vindictive person with a large knife do in this situation?", it has no claim to be operating anything worthy of the name 'justice'. The idea of a judicial system, and a judge at the end of this system, deciding that paralysing someone was an action on the part of that system which had any legitimacy makes me recoil.

This is aside from the human outcome: how can having 2 paralysed people instead of one be said to improve anything?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anglocatholic:
It may not be politically correct to say so, but Islam is a barbaric religion!

Islam is about 6 or 7 centuries younger than Christianity. Wind back 6 or 7 centuries into Christian Europe's history, take a look at the punishments being handed out, and tell me again how there's something inherently more barbaric about Islam.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Six or 7 (or less) centuries ago everyone was into barbaric punishments. I reject the idea that all religions have a uniform developmental path, which includes a period of judicial savagery in the way that toddlerhood includes tantrums.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Orfeo wrote:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by anglocatholic:
It may not be politically correct to say so, but Islam is a barbaric religion!
Islam is about 6 or 7 centuries younger than Christianity. Wind back 6 or 7 centuries into Christian Europe's history, take a look at the punishments being handed out, and tell me again how there's something inherently more barbaric about Islam.

The difficulty with this argument is that, as Islam's defenders often point out(quite rightly), there have been times and places where it has been more liberal and more tolerant than Christianity. Despite being newer.

I think things like economic conditions etc are probably more important than simple age in explaining how a religion behaves.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Orfeo wrote:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by anglocatholic:
It may not be politically correct to say so, but Islam is a barbaric religion!
Islam is about 6 or 7 centuries younger than Christianity. Wind back 6 or 7 centuries into Christian Europe's history, take a look at the punishments being handed out, and tell me again how there's something inherently more barbaric about Islam.
The difficulty with this argument is that, as Islam's defenders often point out(quite rightly), there have been times and places where it has been more liberal and more tolerant than Christianity. Despite being newer.

I think things like economic conditions etc are probably more important than simple age in explaining how a religion behaves.

This is true, but the whole point is that religions don't behave any way at all. People do. And people who are looking for a justification for their barbarous behaviour will find one in religious texts, economic conditions, the good of their country or because that other man looked at them funny.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
but the whole point is that religions don't behave any way at all. People do. And people who are looking for a justification for their barbarous behaviour will find one in religious texts, economic conditions, the good of their country or because that other man looked at them funny.

Well, yes. But you have to admit, certain religions seem more consistently linked to justifications for certain types of behaviour. There are more Christians blowing up abortion clinics than there are Muslims or Buddhists, for example. It's not that "Christianity", or even a majority of Christian people, are doing that, just that something about the faith lends itself more easily to appropriation as a rationale for anti-abortion violence.

And to be sure, other factors play a role. Anti-abortion terrorism seems geographically limited to one particular country, for example, not the whole Christian world.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, yes. But you have to admit, certain religions seem more consistently linked to justifications for certain types of behaviour. There are more Christians blowing up abortion clinics than there are Muslims or Buddhists, for example. It's not that "Christianity", or even a majority of Christian people, are doing that, just that something about the faith lends itself more easily to appropriation as a rationale for anti-abortion violence.

And to be sure, other factors play a role. Anti-abortion terrorism seems geographically limited to one particular country, for example, not the whole Christian world.

Then why not say it's a geographical/political problem, not a Christianity issue? That's every bit as foolish as labelling the whole of Islam based on the situation in one Muslim country. Because when you say 'other factors play a role', what you've actually said is 'oh look, the fact that it's a Christian-heritage country is sheer bloody coincidence because that common factor with other Christian-heritage countries fails to generate similar results'.

Twice in recent months I've read 2 entirely separate sources pointing out that the sanctity of life from conception wasn't a common Christian position even 50 years ago. Not even in the USA. People don't become rabidly anti-abortion because they're Christian, rabidly anti-abortion people latch onto Christian rhetoric because invoking a higher power gives them a warm moral glow.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I dunno, I would say they are merely rabid. The anti-abortion stand is just convenient to latch onto.

(Speaking of the perpetrators of violent acts, not all those opposing abortion.)

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by piglet:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
... unless he's fabulously wealthy ...
It seems unlikely:

quote:
Saudi media reports earlier said the 24-year-old man could be paralysed from the waist down if he could not pay his victim £250,000 in compensation.

I think it is wrong. I think one rule for the rich and one for the poor is even more wrong (if such a thing is possible).

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
Until now.

The link to this 'acid in the eyes' punishment suggests the spinal mutilation was not carried out. When this has come up in the past, it has been explained that the idea is symbolic and needs to be considered that way, versus literalistic ideas. But perhaps that's a gloss.

The ideas of such punishments are stupid, immoral, and have little to do with culture, and much more to do with ignorance. Much as restrictive dressing practices for women are.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

If that was meant for me--

the "if he is fabulously wealthy" reference meant simply that in that case he could afford to hire paraplegic care, rather than the burden falling on his family. That's the only reason I brought it up.

I think it unlikely.

Really, he ought to be providing such care for his victim--assuming the victim even wants to see his face ever again. But barring that, I'd be happy with any kind of restitutionary sentence as opposed to the wasteful and foolish ruling that produces a second paralyzed person and thus impacts his innocent family, who will have to support him. Because I can't imagine, given where he lives, that post-sentence he will be able to benefit from any of the services, training, education, or accommodations that allow paralyzed people to function and contribute to the community in other parts of the world.

[ 06. April 2013, 14:45: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

... tried to ETA: ...anymore than I would be able to function (given my eye and joint issues) in a poor family in such a country. They'd have to set me out with a beggar's bowl.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
Until now.
The link to this 'acid in the eyes' punishment suggests the spinal mutilation was not carried out. When this has come up in the past, it has been explained that the idea is symbolic and needs to be considered that way, versus literalistic ideas. But perhaps that's a gloss.

These real punishments do happen, it's not just a symbolic idea in Saudi Arabia or Iran*.

I don't know what a link to a previous event which did happen has to do with the current one. Until there is proper verifiable news that the family of the victim in this current case has accepted the diyya or extended mercy to the guilty person, it must be assumed that this case will eventually go ahead as the court ordered it.

* indeed, in Iran there was a case a couple of years ago where a young woman decided to extend mercy only when the criminal was strapped down and she had the dropper with the acid in her hand.

Posted by Gextvedde (# 11084) on :

I came here looking for a Saudi comedy rock band thread [Disappointed]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
These real punishments do happen, it's not just a symbolic idea in Saudi Arabia or Iran*.

I don't know what a link to a previous event which did happen has to do with the current one. Until there is proper verifiable news that the family of the victim in this current case has accepted the diyya or extended mercy to the guilty person, it must be assumed that this case will eventually go ahead as the court ordered it.

* indeed, in Iran there was a case a couple of years ago where a young woman decided to extend mercy only when the criminal was strapped down and she had the dropper with the acid in her hand.

The example sounds like something the USA military and CIA torturers do.

Lynchings and vigilante violence also happen, as does the execution of mentally ill and incompetent people. Is it common or rare? Are there statistics? Links?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

I don't know where the thread's got to now, I don't see it listed. At any rate, we needn't haul ass all the way back to the Inquisition for invidious comparisons of the barbarity of various religious systems. AFAICT, they all

Within the last year, there was discussion in this very forum concerning a woman who died in a Christian hospital after being denied an abortion that would have saved her life.

And she wasn't even accused of any crime.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I'm quite happy to interfere in any countries affairs if the reasoning is sound. Hacking someones spine to pieces in revenge is one of those reasons.
But apparently it's fine if someone who isn't the government does it. Or at least, they shouldn't be punished appropriately for doing it.

I like this Saudi law. Do unto criminals what try did unto others. It's fair.
Even if the criminal was a child when the offence was committed, as was the case in this situation?

When this "eye for an eye" principle was explained to me, it was clearly stated that it was to limit punishment, not to define it. Remember that here in the enlightened West it isn't that long ago that adults and even children were transported or even executed for what we now consider minor thefts.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

While Islam does provide for "an eye for an eye" retribution, it does strongly encourage the offended party to forgo retribution as an act of charity to be rewarded in the next life, or as an act of atonement for their own sins.

One thing that always stood out for me is that in Saudi Arabia, the family of a murder victim can ask that a death penalty sentence be spared and that was almost always granted, but in the U.S. they can't. In Texas, Karla Faye Tucker was sentenced to death for murder in 1984. While in prison she was known as a model prisoner, convert to Christianity and had become friends with the murdered individual's family who eventually advocated for her sentence to be commuted to life in prison. The State (under GW Bush who was a year away from running for President) refused that request and she was executed in 1998.

[ 06. April 2013, 19:52: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Because I can't imagine, given where he lives, that post-sentence he will be able to benefit from any of the services, training, education, or accommodations that allow paralyzed people to function and contribute to the community in other parts of the world.

Nor will his victim, but very few people seem to be bothered about that...

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Because I can't imagine, given where he lives, that post-sentence he will be able to benefit from any of the services, training, education, or accommodations that allow paralyzed people to function and contribute to the community in other parts of the world.
Nor will his victim, but very few people seem to be bothered about that...

Unless his victim will be miraculously cured by the perpetrator's spine being severed, I don't see that this is particularly relevant. Of course the victim should be enabled to live the fullest possible life after the evil that has been done to him. There is still, to my mind at least, a world of difference between the isolated action of an individual in a moment of time and the deliberate intention, resolution and action of an entire system and the conscious decision of a whole group of people to co-operate with that system.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
Of course the victim should be enabled to live the fullest possible life after the evil that has been done to him.

The problem in my mind is that people seem to think that the sort of scum who would do such evil in the first place should also be enabled to live the fullest possible life. Rather than, say, being left to rot.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Aaauuugghhh. My point was that he will NOT be left to rot, however much he ought to be, because he almost certainly has family who will end up taking care of him / supporting him financially / etc. etc. etc.* Whether you think he ought to be left to rot is a moot point. It won't happen. Particularly not in a culture where extended family ties are so strong.

What WILL happen is that not only this person, but his family, will be rendered that much less useful to the community they live in. Which creates an additional burden on the community--one which can be avoided by a different sentence.

* And yes, I get it that the victim's family is already in this boat. So why make matters worse by putting TWO families in it? Hell, why not require the perp to lighten their load in some way instead? Even if you choose to send him to the salt mines and assign derivative income to the victim.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Hell, why not require the perp to lighten their load in some way instead? Even if you choose to send him to the salt mines and assign derivative income to the victim.

Well, they did give him the option of paying an enormous sum to the victim, but he can't afford it. It's really not any different in our society -- the rich inevitably do better than the poor in our so-called justice system.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
What WILL happen is that not only this person, but his family, will be rendered that much less useful to the community they live in.

I'm not entirely convinced that someone who is prepared to stab someone else in the spine was useful to the community to start with.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

...eye for eye, tooth for tooth...

I seem to recall it ends up "vengeance is mine saith the Lord".

So, the rule for Abrahamic faiths must be that vengeance can be exacted by the Lord, not by us.

Simples!

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
What WILL happen is that not only this person, but his family, will be rendered that much less useful to the community they live in.
I'm not entirely convinced that someone who is prepared to stab someone else in the spine was useful to the community to start with.

If that's the case we had better check everyone out at a pretty early age and do something to or about all those who don't appear "useful".

Wasn't that the basis of Eugenics. [Frown]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
So, the rule for Abrahamic faiths must be that vengeance can be exacted by the Lord, not by us.

Except He doesn't. The scum prosper and the faithful get shat on.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If that's the case we had better check everyone out at a pretty early age and do something to or about all those who don't appear "useful".

Hey, I wasn't the one who started talking about people's usefulness to society as if that was an important factor in all this.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Marvin: I agree, it does indeed seem that the unrighteous are "in great power and flourish as the green bay tree".

Would it be wrong to entreat the Lord to take vengeance in cases like this???

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I don't know where the thread's got to now, I don't see it listed. At any rate, we needn't haul ass all the way back to the Inquisition for invidious comparisons of the barbarity of various religious systems. AFAICT, they all

Within the last year, there was discussion in this very forum concerning a woman who died in a Christian hospital after being denied an abortion that would have saved her life.

And she wasn't even accused of any crime.

Christian hospital? Don't be coy: don't you mean a Catholic hospital? In fact, it was neither - it was Irish state hospital. The thread you are meaning is here and your reporting the facts of the case is highly contentious.

According to wiki, "the incident is currently under investigation, and the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, has stated: "I don't think we should say anything about this until we are in possession of all the facts." " Are you?

[ 07. April 2013, 20:22: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Linky, linky.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
So, the rule for Abrahamic faiths must be that vengeance can be exacted by the Lord, not by us.
Except He doesn't. The scum prosper and the faithful get shat on.

Do you really want justice for all? Do you know how many don't have potable water? I suspect on a global (God) scale we are all spinal severers. What makes us any better than a young kid who made a serious serious error?

And like a good Sunday school answer, Christ is the answer and technically we are all scum- well... redeemed scum.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

let's avoid Dead Horses, minions. There's plenty of material here without heading in that direction.

comet
Hellhost

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
What WILL happen is that not only this person, but his family, will be rendered that much less useful to the community they live in.
I'm not entirely convinced that someone who is prepared to stab someone else in the spine was useful to the community to start with.

I'm having this near irresistable urge to say "Duh", but never mind. My point was about the future. And no, I'm not talking anything so rose colored as moral rehabilitation. I mean simply that he'd be better employed digging wells or shoveling shit than rendered incapable of most productive work. Here is maybe the one case where I could go along with the ancient idea of selling someone as a slave to pay off his debt. Though I suspect I may have just stirred another shitstorm.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anglocatholic:
It may not be politically correct to say so, but Islam is a barbaric religion!

What makes this such an inaccurate (and IMHO rather offensive) generalisation is the failure to remember the easily ascertained fact that the form of Islam espoused by the Saudi monarchy -- narrow extreme fundamentalist Wahhabism -- is far from representative of Islam in general.

(Unfortunately the Saudis have gazillions in petrodollars some of which is used to covertly push their particular religious agenda. And it doesn't help that they currently have political control of Islam's holiest places.)

[ 08. April 2013, 00:42: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
What makes this such an inaccurate (and IMHO rather offensive) generalisation

Oops, sorry, i forgot this was Hell.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

s'okay, be offended all you like. just don't expect us to give a shit.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0