Can you see the hypocracy?

I'm so glad the US takes a firm stand against brutal countries with harsh laws. You know like Iran, Sudan, N. Korea. And I'm glad we are reward the tamer nicer countries in the Middle East with our alliance and cooperation...


Saudi court sentences 75-year-old woman to lashes

CAIRO – A 75-year-old widow in Saudi Arabia has been sentenced to 40 lashes and four months in jail for mingling with two young men who are not close relatives, drawing new criticism for the kingdom's ultraconservative religious police and judiciary.

The woman's lawyer told The Associated Press on Monday that he would appeal the verdict against Khamisa Sawadi, who is Syrian but was married to a Saudi. The attorney, Abdel Rahman al-Lahem, said the verdict issued March 3 also demands that Sawadi be deported after serving her sentence.

He said his client, who is not serving her sentence yet, was not speaking with the media, and he declined to provide more details about the case.

The newspaper Al-Watan said the woman met with the two 24-year-old men last April after she asked them to bring her five loaves of bread at her home in al-Chamil, a city north of the capital, Riyadh.

Al-Watan identified one man as Fahd al-Anzi, the nephew of Sawadi's late husband, and the other as his friend and business partner Hadiyan bin Zein. It said they were arrested by the religious police after delivering the bread. The men also were convicted and sentenced to lashes and prison.

The court said it based its ruling on "citizen information" and testimony from al-Anzi's father, who accused Sawadi of corruption.

"Because she said she doesn't have a husband and because she is not a Saudi, conviction of the defendants of illegal mingling has been confirmed," the court verdict read.

Saudi Arabia's strict interpretation of Islam prohibits men and women who are not immediate relatives from mingling. It also bars women from driving, and the playing of music, dancing and many movies also are a concern for hard-liners who believe they violate religious and moral values.

Complaints from Saudis have been growing that the religious police and courts are overstepping their broad mandate and interfering in people's lives, and critics lambasted the handling of Sawadi's case.

"How can a verdict be issued based on suspicion?" Laila Ahmed al-Ahdab, a physician who also is a columnist for Al-Watan, wrote Monday. "A group of people are misusing religion to serve their own interests."

Sawadi told the court she considered al-Anzi as her son, because she breast-fed him when he was a baby. But the court denied her claim, saying she didn't provide evidence. In Islamic tradition, breast-feeding establishes a degree of maternal relation, even if a woman nurses a child who is not biologically hers.

Sawadi commonly asked her neighbors for help after her husband died, said journalist Bandar al-Ammar, who reported the story for Al-Watan. In a recent article, he wrote that he felt the need to report the case "so everybody knows to what degree we have reached."

The woman's conviction came a few weeks after King Abdullah fired the chief of the religious police and a cleric who condoned killing owners of TV networks that broadcast "immoral content." The move was seen as part of an effort to weaken the hard-line Sunni Muslim establishment

Big Slick wrote:I'm so glad the US takes a firm stand against brutal countries with harsh laws. You know like Iran, Sudan, N. Korea. And I'm glad we are reward the tamer nicer countries in the Middle East with our alliance and cooperation...

Please, if you think that the alliance is based on anything other than money/resources/security then that is a shame.

What is also a shame is when the shoe is on the other foot, how much have France been vilified for saying no to an illegal war?

Anyways, this is indeed a deplorable act that almost no-one outside of the Islamic world would condone. (Not that everyone inside it would).

At least Catholicism is trying to heave itself out of the dark ages lest it be left behind, when will Islam follow suit with it's inequal sex laws?!?!

Sir Bonvolio wrote:

Big Slick wrote:I'm so glad the US takes a firm stand against brutal countries with harsh laws. You know like Iran, Sudan, N. Korea. And I'm glad we are reward the tamer nicer countries in the Middle East with our alliance and cooperation...

Please, if you think that the alliance is based on anything other than money/resources/security then that is a shame.

I was hoping my sarcasm would show through, Sir. I know it's about oil. I actually think it's disgusting to see our leaders condem certain countries for their harsh laws and take the moral high ground, all the while conveniently overlooking the same acts by countries that we need for their oil.

Big Slick wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:

Big Slick wrote:I'm so glad the US takes a firm stand against brutal countries with harsh laws. You know like Iran, Sudan, N. Korea. And I'm glad we are reward the tamer nicer countries in the Middle East with our alliance and cooperation...

Please, if you think that the alliance is based on anything other than money/resources/security then that is a shame.

I was hoping my sarcasm would show through, Sir. I know it's about oil. I actually think it's disgusting to see our leaders condem certain countries for their harsh laws and take the moral high ground, all the while conveniently overlooking the same acts by countries that we need for their oil.

Wasn't sure, hence the qualifiers

Personally, I don't think the US, UK, etc. should be dealing with countries that have questionable human rights records, especially if it is within the non-secular governments holy book to treat certain citizens differently. Cut off Cuba for far less...

Also, if we sell weapons to despotic dictators, then surely we should be accountable in the second degree for the atrocities carried out by said weapons?

Stories like this kinda make ya want to convert to Islam and move to the middle east eh?

How do you know I'm not already Muslim?

That's sick. I agree slick, it's a damned shame our country still maintains relations with a country like that.

Big Slick wrote:How do you know I'm not already Muslim?

isn't it obvious to everyone? personally, l'm of the opinion that you may be a muslim women. condolences.

Sir Bonvolio wrote:What is also a shame is when the shoe is on the other foot, how much have France been vilified for saying no to an illegal war?

Just to set the record straight, the French government's opposition to the Iraq war was based on greed, not morality. They were in bed with Saddam skimming billions of dollars from the United Nation's "Oil For Food Program", and were only protecting their interests. In fact, France and China were the two biggest players in that scam, which was taking money that was supposed to buy food and medicine for the poor in Iraq, and giving it to Saddam to build up his military arsenal.

France deserved to be vilified.

Besides, the Iraq was was not illegal.

Grim17 wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:What is also a shame is when the shoe is on the other foot, how much have France been vilified for saying no to an illegal war?

Just to set the record straight, the French government's opposition to the Iraq war was based on greed, not morality. They were in bed with Saddam skimming billions of dollars from the United Nation's "Oil For Food Program", and were only protecting their interests. In fact, France and China were the two biggest players in that scam, which was taking money that was supposed to buy food and medicine for the poor in Iraq, and giving it to Saddam to build up his military arsenal.

France deserved to be vilified.

Besides, the Iraq was was not illegal.

Lucky they found those WMDs to justify kicking out a regeime they put in place...

Grim17 wrote:
Besides, the Iraq war was not illegal.

As much as I'd like to disagree with you, grim, I think it could go either way.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/issues/4492443.stm

OK, let me see if I can sum this up...

I object to your implication that France took a moral stand against the US invasion of Iraq, by informing you they opposed the war for greed.

You have nothing to say.

I state that the Iraq was not "illegal", as you had claimed.

You respond by saying there were no WMD's, which has nothing to do with the legality of the war.

I haven't said this in a long time, but what a typical liberal response. You ignore facts, and let your false proclamations stand. We know you hate Bush... We know you hate war... but that's no reason to lie and distort the facts to prop up hatred.

Big Slick wrote:

Grim17 wrote:
Besides, the Iraq war was not illegal.

As much as I'd like to disagree with you, grim, I think it could go either way.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/issues/4492443.stm

That suggests to me that they were allowed to force Iraq to allow the weapons inspectors in. Not overthrow the government.......

The whole point of the UN is that things are thought through before action is taken...

Grim17 wrote:OK, let me see if I can sum this up...

I object to your implication that France took a moral stand against the US invasion of Iraq, by informing you they opposed the war for greed.

You have nothing to say.

I state that the Iraq was not "illegal", as you had claimed.

You respond by saying there were no WMD's, which has nothing to do with the legality of the war.

I haven't said this in a long time, but what a typical liberal response. You ignore facts, and let your false proclamations stand. We know you hate Bush... We know you hate war... but that's no reason to lie and distort the facts to prop up hatred.

Just want to be clear. Is this directed at me or Sir?

Grim17 wrote:OK, let me see if I can sum this up...

I object to your implication that France took a moral stand against the US invasion of Iraq, by informing you they opposed the war for greed.

You have nothing to say.

I state that the Iraq was not "illegal", as you had claimed.

You respond by saying there were no WMD's, which has nothing to do with the legality of the war.

I haven't said this in a long time, but what a typical liberal response. You ignore facts, and let your false proclamations stand. We know you hate Bush... We know you hate war... but that's no reason to lie and distort the facts to prop up hatred.

Hi Grim...

Right, sorry, mine was a bit a cheap shot.

What I meant was, France were vilified in particular. The war shouldn't have taken place without proper UN backing. With the link BS posted, I'll admit it is shakey ground for either side. Also, I generalised rather than saying what I meant.

I didn't hate Bush, I disagreed with his policies. I don't hate war, I think it is a necessary evil and should always be a last resort.

Anyway, re BS' link, it reads to me that the lack of WMDs does, again, call the lagality into contention.

Big Slick wrote:

Grim17 wrote:
Besides, the Iraq war was not illegal.

As much as I'd like to disagree with you, grim, I think it could go either way.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/issues/4492443.stm

Over the last several years I have researched this issue extensively, and that's why I stand by my claim that the Iraq can be called many things, but it can't be called "illegal". The US and it's partners took the issue to the UN, when in reality, they didn't even have to.

Many people focus on resolution 1441, and believe that although it was passed by a 15-0 vote, it wasn't clear on the consequences of non-compliance. What many fail to realize, is it didn't have to be clear, based on UN resolutions 678 and 687 which clearly authorized the use of force for non-compliance.

That article you posted from the BBC was a good one because it was based on facts, not someone's agenda or political ideology.

Grim17 wrote:

Big Slick wrote:

Grim17 wrote:
Besides, the Iraq war was not illegal.

As much as I'd like to disagree with you, grim, I think it could go either way.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/issues/4492443.stm

Over the last several years I have researched this issue extensively, and that's why I stand by my claim that the Iraq can be called many things, but it can't be called "illegal". The US and it's partners took the issue to the UN, when in reality, they didn't even have to.

Many people focus on resolution 1441, and believe that although it was passed by a 15-0 vote, it wasn't clear on the consequences of non-compliance. What many fail to realize, is it didn't have to be clear, based on UN resolutions 678 and 687 which clearly authorized the use of force for non-compliance.

That article you posted from the BBC was a good one because it was based on facts, not someone's agenda or political ideology.

I think the grey area is whether or not they had the authority to remove Saddam from power. I think they called it "a proportionate response to that objective"

That is where the question of legality comes into play. It seems clear they were legal in using force, but were they legal in removing Saddam from power and overthrowing the government.

My opinion would be no, I don't think they should have removed him from power. I don't believe leaders of other countries should be removed from power by another country with the exception of extreme cases (i.e. Hitler). I think Saddam was more of a peacock than a raptor. He would talk his army up and make boastful comments but wasn't a real threat to anyone. Imagine the shoe on the other foot and what if the UN decided to let China and Russia remove our President by force, because he refused to comply with UN demands he felt would threaten our national security.

Sir Bonvolio wrote:

Hi Grim...

Right, sorry, mine was a bit a cheap shot.

As was my response. Consider it withdrawn.

What I meant was, France were vilified in particular.

Yes, they were... Because they had always been our allie, and their opposition was a sort of slap in the face. Many believed at the time, their opposition to US invasion was based on morality, and was considered brave and noble by those that opposed Bush and war in general. It wasn't until a year or so after the war, that we learned the true reason that France had opposed an invasion. It was to protect the billions of dollars they were making by stealing food and medicine from the people of Iraq, and putting in Saddams pocket.

The war shouldn't have taken place without proper UN backing. With the link BS posted, I'll admit it is shakey ground for either side. Also, I generalised rather than saying what I meant.

It did have backing. Saddam was ordered to account for the WMD that HE PROCLAIMED HE HAD after the first gulf war. The consequences of not accounting for those WMD was clearly stated in UN Resolutions 678 and 687.

I didn't hate Bush, I disagreed with his policies. I don't hate war, I think it is a necessary evil and should always be a last resort.

My apologies for labeling you otherwise.

Anyway, re BS' link, it reads to me that the lack of WMDs does, again, call the lagality into contention.

No, it doesn't. Saddam was required to account for the WMD he possessed. Whether we found them, or whether he had them in the first place is irrelevant. He stated he had them, and it was his job to prove what became of them. If they never existed, he should have come forward and said so, but as we know, he never did.

Big Slick wrote:I think the grey area is whether or not they had the authority to remove Saddam from power. I think they called it "a proportionate response to that objective"

That is where the question of legality comes into play. It seems clear they were legal in using force, but were they legal in removing Saddam from power and overthrowing the government.

My opinion would be no, I don't think they should have removed him from power. I don't believe leaders of other countries should be removed from power by another country with the exception of extreme cases (i.e. Hitler). I think Saddam was more of a peacock than a raptor. He would talk his army up and make boastful comments but wasn't a real threat to anyone. Imagine the shoe on the other foot and what if the UN decided to let China and Russia remove our President by force, because he refused to comply with UN demands he felt would threaten our national security.

What many forget, is Saddam agreed to the terms in those previous resolutions to end the first gulf war, and avoid being overthrown. If he hadn't agreed to those resolutions, we would have invaded Baghdad and removed him back in 1991. In 11 years, Saddam never complied. In other words, he violated the terms of his surrender in the first gulf war, so the authority to remove him was still in place.

Grim17 wrote:

Big Slick wrote:

Grim17 wrote:
Besides, the Iraq war was not illegal.

As much as I'd like to disagree with you, grim, I think it could go either way.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/issues/4492443.stm

Over the last several years I have researched this issue extensively, and that's why I stand by my claim that the Iraq can be called many things, but it can't be called "illegal". The US and it's partners took the issue to the UN, when in reality, they didn't even have to.

Many people focus on resolution 1441, and believe that although it was passed by a 15-0 vote, it wasn't clear on the consequences of non-compliance. What many fail to realize, is it didn't have to be clear, based on UN resolutions 678 and 687 which clearly authorized the use of force for non-compliance.

That article you posted from the BBC was a good one because it was based on facts, not someone's agenda or political ideology.

Grim, your research consists of far right websites...that slant the truth to fit their agenda...

Independent Harry wrote:Grim, your research consists of far right websites...that slant the truth to fit their agenda...

Sorry Harry, but the truth isn't based on any political agenda.

My contentions about the legality of the war in Iraq are based on history and public record. Everything I stated on this thread is indisputable. All you have to do is read those UN resolutions and the cease fire agreement that ended the first gulf war, and you will find that the US and it's partners had full authority to remove Saddam from power.

Debating whether it was the right thing to do, is a debate that has no absolute answer. It's based on personal beliefs and ideology ... When it comes debating it's legality, there is no debate. It was legal according to United Nations resolutions, and according to a vote in the US Congress, which gave the president the authority to use military force in Iraq.

Oh... btw Harry... The BBC is one of the most liberal media outlets in the world. Their liberal bias is legendary, so your claims that my research is from the far right is laughable.

Grim17 wrote:

Independent Harry wrote:Grim, your research consists of far right websites...that slant the truth to fit their agenda...

Sorry Harry, but the truth isn't based on any political agenda.

My contentions about the legality of the war in Iraq are based on history and public record. Everything I stated on this thread is indisputable. All you have to do is read those UN resolutions and the cease fire agreement that ended the first gulf war, and you will find that the US and it's partners had full authority to remove Saddam from power.

Debating whether it was the right thing to do, is a debate that has no absolute answer. It's based on personal beliefs and ideology ... When it comes debating it's legality, there is no debate. It was legal according to United Nations resolutions, and according to a vote in the US Congress, which gave the president the authority to use military force in Iraq.

Oh... btw Harry... The BBC is one of the most liberal media outlets in the world. Their liberal bias is legendary, so your claims that my research is from the far right is laughable.

They've been very scared to say anything bad about the government since they threaten to pull funding/licensing fee over the Dr. Kelly incident...

Sir Bonvolio wrote:They've been very scared to say anything bad about the government since they threaten to pull funding/licensing fee over the Dr. Kelly incident...

That BBC article was from April 28, 2005... When did the Dr. Kelly incident take place?

July 03

Sir Bonvolio wrote:July 03

OK... But the BBC did an internal investigation a few years ago, and the concluded that they were in fact, slanted toward the liberal point of view. Besides, that article was not an opinion piece in the first place. It was based completely on the facts, using the actual content of the UN resolutions. It made no determination and came to no conclusions.

Harry's attempt to discredit the article by saying it was a partisan piece, is dishonest and completely without merit.

Grim17 wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:What is also a shame is when the shoe is on the other foot, how much have France been vilified for saying no to an illegal war?

Just to set the record straight, the French government's opposition to the Iraq war was based on greed, not morality. They were in bed with Saddam skimming billions of dollars from the United Nation's "Oil For Food Program", and were only protecting their interests. In fact, France and China were the two biggest players in that scam, which was taking money that was supposed to buy food and medicine for the poor in Iraq, and giving it to Saddam to build up his military arsenal.

France deserved to be vilified.

Besides, the Iraq was was not illegal.

It's a good thing that China benefited from that deal then, since we need to borrow money from them. LOL...