Politics Thread

[3KGT]

Remember, 'jihad' means holy war and they think they're doing god's will - not a revolt against colonies.

Jihad actually means, in Islamic tradition, an internal spiritual struggle, focused on individual purification and the promotion of social justice and human rights. It's meaning has been twisted by propaganda from both sides of the conflict. You must remember that the religion has been twisted by these terrorists.

[3KGT]

Ok, but what about the people of the Middle East that make generalizations about the west like we are all one religion/culture?

You have a valid point G-Rock, but it would be easier to try to educate our own poeple first. The way this war is going, and the terminology of the Bush Administration, is not going to change the way the Arabs think of us.

[West]

To Ciro - I thought that pic was funny... not cuz of the sign... but the guy holding it just has a weird grin to it... like it's meant to offend or something... I dunno how it's offensive tho (again I don't care much for politics)

To miqi - those things are a product of propaganda. I don't know anything about the religion, really... but it irks me when I hear things like that. It's very hard to defend or accept the religion when things like the Beslan hostage crisis occur.

Anyway... this thread has become a brewing ground for hate speech; I maybe or maybe not got caught up in it but I wish the mods would close up this thread... there are other places to discuss politics... especially since I first came to this website to know why do cars need bargeboards... I'll leave with this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WLoasfOLpQ

I wish there were more people like her.

Edit: you were right miqi... I should have mentioned Iraq or Afghanistan specifically instead of the Middle East... that's just my way of referring to what's going on today. One of my friend's is actually from Iran, which seems much normal compared to Iraq:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... q=iran+bbc

But the president's "Israel should be wiped off the map" rhetoric doesn't really make many friends either...

[manchild]

Marxism in theory is peaceful and humane turned into something practically very bad and evil.

Islam in theory is peaceful and humane turned into something practically very bad and evil.

At least half of the population living under Marxism suffers.

At least half of the population living under Islam suffers.

Marxists threaten western civilization with destruction.

Islamists threaten western civilization with destruction.

Saying, let's respect Islam in general would be like saying let's respect Marxism in general but those two are not just left in theoretical zone but something developed in practice. Applied in practice in real conditions they look as they look. We can't use their theoretically "peaceful and humane" background as an excuse for actions of those who act and speak in the name of theory.

If at least there was a movement or a group within Islam supported by Islamic population as much as terrorists are that would raise it's voice in condemnation of terrorists and abuse of Islam we could have some consideration for Islam in general but unfortunately there's no such movement.

It is not the fault of the people in free world that for them associations for Islam are words like "bomb, terrorist, fanatics, inhumanity". It is the way terrorists present Islam while no one else from Islamic countries does a thing to stand up against terrorists for the sake of good name of Islam. If great majority of people belonging to Islam let terrorist to represent them in the world than why do they except that free world should consider them as better than terrorists?

Free world fought against Marxists and it is absolutely logical that it fights against Islamists. If for nothing else than for the sake of liberation of woman in Islamic countries. If you're a humane country with a means to change things than you just can't respect society where woman can be burned by her husband because Islam gives him the right to do so.

It just can't end up in world dividing in two because even if west would close eyes Islamists would still lead the holly war against the "unfaithfull". They see non-Islam societies as something they should destroy because their holly book tells them so. So it wand end in any other way but in defeat on one of the sides or as defeat of the both sides.

It is no excuse and no one sane would say "Islam is ok because only terrorists use it as a weapon while great majority of people who belong to Islam don't support that". Well, great majority of people living in countries where Marxism was "holly book" also didn't support Marxists but they did something about it.

I've never seen demonstrations or any action against Islamic terrorists in ANY Islamic country. If as someone said here, most of the people belonging to Islam are not on the same path as terrorists why aren't they as great majority doing something to convince rest of the world that they're against it?

Hammas got 2/3 of the votes in Palestinian elections while PLO got the rest. Both of those "political parties" have committed horrific terrorists acts. Please show me how whole Palestinian population isn't actually backing up terrorism?

Why aren't for example anti-terrorist demonstrations held in some distant Islamic country in the Asia for example? If that majority of people belonging to Islam really thought that terrorists are giving their religion bad name by calling upon it they'd certainly protest and do something about that "small group" but they're doing nothing.

In each and every place where a group of people believing in Islam lives there's a terrorists cell too. From middle east as the cradle of terrorism across Europe, UK, Canada, USA, Oceania, Asia, Russia - everywhere.

Most of the other known religions are also spread over the globe but only Islam produces terrorist, why? Buddhists for example could have the right to say "our holly land is occupied so that's why we're terrorizing China" but they are not doing that. Why? Because Buddhism is essentially peaceful and humane religion and that's something Islam isn't.

I'd like to add that I'm not generalizing each in every person belonging to Islam because I know not each and every person is the same but I do equalize all Islamic countries/societies. They have different approach but same goal and not a bit compassion for anyone killed by terrorists.

Basically, that's what happens when you put religion in front moral. It is identical for any religion, not just Islam.



*I wrote that I'm pulling out and than I wrote this, what can I say... I'm a bustard.

[Ciro Pabón]

West, I've already seen it. Here I have one I think more relevant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F782mCl ... ed&search=

If you don't have the time to watch the video, perhaps you'll have it to read this:

"... The problem after a war is with the victor. He thinks he has just proved that war and violence pay. Who will teach him a lesson? ...

It's only in folk tales and children stories and the pages of journals of intellectual opinion that power is used wisely and well to erradicate evil in the world. The real world teaches quite different lessons and it takes willful and dedicated ignorance to fail to perceive them. The succesful use of violence typically engenders enthusiastic praise among the flatterers of the court and the secular priesthood of the intellectuals in the modern era. As far as I know that's universally true, at least I don't know any exceptions...

The central tragic fact is simple: coercion works. Those who apply substantial force to their fellows get compliance, and, from that compliance, derive the multiple advantages of money, goods, defference, access to pleasures, denied to the less powerful people... Costless destruction of defenseless enemies: that wins particular admiration and also becomes habitual, and natural, and proof of one's virtue."

West, I have been defending USA constitution and principles in Latin America for ages, while most people down here blame you for our many troubles. I'm not a Bolivar fan (another "war-suffices" guy!), I was educated elsewhere.

It's people like Mrs. Wafa Sultan, so infused with "their right", so ready to qualify their adversaries as enemies who pose for me a larger problem in my "pro-american principles" stand. You don't need more of them, they are a dime the dozen.

Trying to perceive the Iraq war as a clash of civilizations is incredibly ignorant and dangerous for your own well being, not mine. If it wasn't for the fact that the alternatives RIGHT NOW are even more dangerous (think about China!) I'm sure more people would try to bring USA power down. Miqui pointed out that violence in Middle East is dragging even the minorities to think "Well, if wearing a burka is what it takes to emerge from this I'm going to use mine". Even americans are in doubt about themselves.

There are dozens of countries like Iraq, but there is only one USA, rich but submerged in conflict, trying hard to become better. We, americans (by that I mean North, Central and South America) at this side of the world used to be called The New World.

Clash of civilizations? If we, people of the third world are so backwards, we treat women as beasts, are so ignorant, why has USA got into so much problem trying to defeat us with weapons? Check Bush ratings... there you'll find your own fellow citizens expressing their dissatisfaction with a backward leadership. Bush is giving you, as we say in Latin America "more of the same".

Don't expect any help on resolving this issue, different of what miqi and Dave are (or were, please Dave, we need your equanimity here) trying to give you: Europe, if I'm allowed to express it so, is swiming in self complacency right now, they have the "we didn't do it" attitude, and that doesn't help much. Europe has solved its main problems, that's clear to anyone that has visited Helsinki and L.A. or even New Zealand (not in Europe, I know, but, hey, you understand me) and Washington D.C.

Take a look at this very forum: Tomba and Principessa educate us, guide us, mantain a comendable neutrality, don't hijack any thread, use wisely their power, but they are not going to come to Latin America to build racecars (or websites) for us: they have their own problems.

I know USA can do better. Jefferson spirit is not dead and let me clarify I don't find that spirit in the so called "USA left", before you tag me as a "lefty" and don't give a second thought about mine, thinking I'm copying and pasting Newsweek editorials: I think, humbly, that USA left are not "to the left", they are (sometimes! you have Nader, for example) lazy people that wishes to live out of a quick reading of the deep insatisfaction many north-americans have, overwhelmed by the economic hardships they confront every day.

For example, Al Gore and his global warming battle: a guy that uses the political system to its own advantage. Is a guy,that spends 22.000 kilowatts per month in his house and buys his way out acquiring "permits to contaminate" from his own company, an alternative to Mr. Bush or Mrs. Sultan plain ignorance of history? I don't think so.

For those of you tempted to throw the towel, to claim that thinking about this is enough, well, this is another thing at the roots of the problem USA has right now. If bargeboards interest you more, well... they interest me as much as this thread. I've seen much less interesting discussions, and much more heated ones, in this forum, about Schumi blinking an eye.

I'm sure Mr. De Groote is thinking about that when he has refused for so long to close this thread.

I know for sure, now, that this forum is a powerhouse of thinking: I'm sure I couldn't find easily another forum, no matter what some of you think, where such a delicate discussion could be held with the elegance and clarity displayed here. Look at all the time and effort you have put on your many, extremely long and (frequently) more than coherent posts. This thread deserves to be framed and hanged on the wall.

[West]

I was actually mentioning her for her bravery to criticize Islam... people may agree or disagree with her thinking, but at least she stands up for her beliefs, especially since she has been threatened with death for a while. Now, if Muslims also protested the way she did... about the violence in Iraq and worldwide... about the way terrorists are twisting the Koran... then maybe there is hope for Iraq.

As for the clash of civilizations... well I never really paid much attention to that, to tell you the truth. At first she states it's not a clash, then it is, then it was the Muslims' idea that it is a clash and not the West's. Take that as flip-flopping, but the thing that stuck out was that their "civiliziation" is stuck in the Middle Ages. However, assuming that this is a clash of civlizations, it's hard to be diplomatic when two "civilizations" are deeply polarized as (somewhat) secular and non-secular states.

The other parts of that video that really stuck out were the parts of the imam, or teacher, whatever he is, asking her if she's a heretic. If that's the way they were taught to analyze things, then f*ck it; there's no point in debating. That kind of attitude just throws diplomacy out the window - we're already viewed as heretics to them, so we obviously have no idea what we're talking about.

Add the fact she mentions Jews and Buddhists (the statues that were destroyed by the Taliban in Afghanistan) do not blow themselves up or burn down embassies to gain respect or to protest. Like manchild said, if Muslims wanted a better image of their religion, if they wanted our respect, the other half that doesn't condone violence must speak up. Blowing up people in the name of Allah makes people think that Islam is a plague against the world. What's even more disgusting is that the terrorists are willing to blow up people of the same religion, regardless of age.

She or I never said war was the solution, and I certainly hope we didn't infer it (judging by your retort)... don't take that as a personal attack but it sounds like you said I support the invasion of Iraq, or a war on Islam. I don't. In fact right after they showed Saddam getting captured I thought "is this really going to solve anything?" I thought this "clash" more along the lines of wearing a pink sweater with green pants rather than a war. Or even more so, a soccer riot.

BTW I never believed in calling liberals or lefties... that kind of sh*t doesn't really solve anything. I also asked that the thread be closed (I really don't care or not) because there are some people here that make it sound more like a personal agenda than a politics debate.

[miqi23]

Sorry I couldnt resisit . I promise this will be my last post.

Check this link out. Well the guy is speaking in Arabic but the translation is quite clear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aoCicazc_A

As I said before WAHABI is the word and they originate from Saudi Arabia. Gosh they are doomed lol.

Another documentry shown on Channel 4 a while ago yet once again shows the sick mentality of these Wahabis who represent Islam. It is in 6 parts so try to dig it out there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFQWuk4nuo

Enjoy and I am off

[manchild]

Problem isn't in what they preach but in fact that governments in free-world countries where they preach such crap don't do a thing about it sacrificing safety of the rest of their citizens for the sake of human rights of those brainless butchers because they also have a bloody citizenship.

If someone is filmed as he calls people to kill others citizens of an certain country than such person must either end up in jail or be treated as persona non grata and extradited including banning of organized religion in whose temples such preaching was done. Same goes for those who will come to Mosque again to"pray" instead of going to police to report possible threat.

Citizens have human rights but they also have some duties and obligations. Those Islamists who live in the free world abuse that by hiding behind human rights and religion with no other intention but to destroy country in which they live in and to kill majority of its population.

What they do isn't any lesser crime than what spies and saboteurs do so they should be treated as such. It is all very clear but big giant heads of oil companies will prolong this as long as it is profitable. The moment when good replacement for oil is found problems caused by world's oil richest Islamic countries will end.

Unfortunately, leaders of the free world are dealing with this problem trough economical and political interests and that only deepens the problem and postpones its solution.


If Islam destroys free world it will be only because free world allows to be destroyed.

[Giancarlo]

Unfortunately, leaders of the free world are dealing with this problem trough economical and political interests and that only deepens the problem and postpones its solution.

If you are not a part of the solution; there's HUGE money in postponing the problem. Case in point, these guys:



Russia has large amounts of oil and natural gas, which effects 2 things;
1. Russia can pretty much tell the EU what to do, if the EU deviates - no resources.
2. Russia supplies Iran with its nuclear technology and sells a large, VERY LARGE, amount of military goods to the Iranians...who give it to terrorists...who cause instability in the markets...which keeps crude and gas prices high.

Keeping the terrorist states happy keeps terrorists out of the USSR, so they think, while the west suffers instability in natural resource prices and a steady flow of Russian munitions so terrorists can still kill in the name of whatever. By keeping tensions high, the prices of natural resources remain high. More money for Russia. Russia also hold veto power in the UN; so don't expect those clowns to either agree on anything or do anything. The sales of nuclear technology and weapons to Iran is paying of for the czar. The more $ he gets, the more he distances himself from democracy and the west. Sooner or later it'll bite them - HARD. But until then, I expect Russia to prolong and support terrorism against western interests.

IMO; we're going to see the start of the 2nd Cold War.

The terrorism that is going on world-wide is very complex. To point it on say 'religion' or 'oppression' is false. While something like 'sharia law' is a part of the global problem - it has to be said that it is only part. I tried to explain this in an earlier post, albeit poorly upon re-reading it, but the War on Terror has many faces.

A nuclear Iran is a bad idea so long as they are a terrorist sponsored state and so long as the ayatollahs have power. Their religion is a huge factor, religion should be separate from government, instead their governments are run by religious zealots and laws passed based on 7th century teachings. That goes along with the human rights atrocities being committed in the muslim world. But aside from only pointing the finger at the middle east; the west really needs to look at who are the big players in creating this problem -> Russia.

Iran needs to be squeezed economically; the only other alternatives would be to allow them to be a nuclear power (bye-bye Israel) and allow them to continue fostering radical jihadists who's goal in life are to kill Americans and die. The other alternative would be military force. We could knock them back to the stone ages or pussy-foot in the name of being politically correct and have many of our men die so that the legacy and political careers of our elected officials would not be tarnished. A full-scale nuclear war or the type of bombing campaigns needed to 'soften' Iran would have huge amounts of civilian losses and would politically be a bad move. If there was ever an invasion into the country - make no mistake - we'll have to bomb the hell out of them for at least 6-8 weeks before boots hit the ground. The country would have to be leveled or nuked. Take your pick. Iran is a natural fortress, it'll be bloody. But a nuclear Iran cannot be tolerated. If the US cannot contain the problem - Israel will surely eliminate it. History does not fair well with those that shoot at, kidnap, provoke, or start a war with Israel, they have a God-given gift for kicking ass. Israel would need little to justify a preemptive attack on Iran, just a copy of the speeches coming from Tehran and proof that Iran has a nuclear weapon. After the preemptive attack is where things will get really-really ugly.

If Iran had nuclear weapons, you can bet dollars to doughnuts that Bin Laden would've used those instead of airliners to attack the US. Even if it didn't kill people, the psychological damage it would do to the nation and to the markets would be devastating. Remember all the panic when anthrax was mailed?

If Iran is squeezed economically, the best outcome would be a coup d'etat. The people would get sick of their situations, revolt, and would have elected officials instead of an ayatollah telling them what to do. But to do this, we have to see Russia for what they have become. The more things change, the more they stay the same...Ike should'a listened to Patton.

Now how to handle Russia/Iran without politics, war, and economics & what the US and Israel should be doing now...that'll be for another post. Now your thoughts.

[manchild]

What should have been done with Iran was instant action after UN nuclear commission concluded that Iran disobeys when it matters nuclear program. US should have bomb all Iran nuclear reactors asap. But no, they'll allow them to make enough plutonium for a nuke or two or at least enough for a pile of dirty bombs. Why will US do so? Because selective one-day bombing of nuclear reactors wouldn't bring much money to US weapon industry. So US will wait until good conditions for a conventional war occur and than they'll invade Iran just as they did with Iraq instead of assassinating Saddam. That means that thousands will die on both sides but who cares when that also means more orders from US military to US weapon industry.

He who has the power and influence to prevent a crime and doesn't do it takes a part of responsibility for the actions of criminal.

In other words, if Iran supplies terrorist with nuclear material and people get killed part of the responsibility will fall on US for not reacting when they should have (same goes for whole NATO) and any other country in the world which was capable of blowing away Iranian nuclear reactors.

I hope it is still not too late.

[Giancarlo]

What should have been done with Iran was instant action after UN nuclear commission concluded that Iran disobeys when it matters nuclear program.

Remember what I said about Russia and the UN? Russia has veto powers, so even if everyone was in agreement concerning action against Iran - Russia can easily say 'no' The entire EU will not go against Russia's wishes for fear of losing their resources, as Russia has previously done to some of its neighbors. On the flip-side, if military action was taken against Iran - you can bet the price of crude will skyrocket. A dramatic increase in the price of crude only helps Russia gain more political and financial leverage. In turn, a more powerful Russia will only exacerbate the problem in the middle east. Like I said; there's huge $ in prolonging this problem. Dropping bombs will not solve anything, although it would make some good TV.

It takes materials, human resources, planning, and execution to build a nuclear facility - Iran is getting it all from Russia. You can't just go to the local 'jihad n' sons' repair shop and buy a reactor, nuclear fission for dummies is not in print, and finding people with expierence to run a nuclear facility is a statistical '0' in Iran. IF you do some digging around for satellite pictures of said facilities, you'll notice that; 1. They're hidden, 2.They're built to withstand bombing, & 3. They're easy to re-locate. The Russians knew what they were doing.

US should have bomb all Iran nuclear reactors asap.

If anyone is going to bomb those facilities in the near future, it'll be Israel. And God help us when/if that happens.

But no, they'll allow them to make enough plutonium for a nuke or two or at least enough for a pile of dirty bombs. Why will US do so? Because selective one-day bombing of nuclear reactors wouldn't bring much money to US weapon industry.

Bombing doesn't take care of the long-term nuclear threat, it will only embolden Iran, squelch any political resistance to the ayatollah in Iran, and make the real nuclear threat - Russia - a lot of money.

So US will wait until good conditions for a conventional war occur and than they'll invade Iran just as they did with Iraq instead of assassinating Saddam. That means that thousands will die on both sides but who cares when that also means more orders from US military to US weapon industry.

This goes back to what I said about pussy-footing for one's own political career. The real investment must be made in intelligence. We need more cooperation with Israel and we need to get some of our friends in the land of the rising sun in on it. Japan should be outfitted with intelligence agencies, anti-ballistic missiles batteries, and a military force consisting mainly of recon/spec-ops forces. Something small, say 5-10,000. Wish American aide and cooperation, we can keep a good eye on N.Korea and China while protecting our friends in Japan. Our Israeli friends need to show us the culture in that area. 38 FBI agents speak farsi - that's pathetic. We don't need a harder working intelligence agencies, we need smarter ones. The kind of agencies that can strike deals with the enemy of our enemy. The kind of agencies that can start revolutions and very-unconventional warfare. It's dangerous, and quite ugly, but short of another war - that's a much better option.

W didn't have the luxury of having intelligent intelligence agencies: his tenure inherited the Clinton intelligence agency. Now things take time, just like everything else that's government run. I really hope that there's alot, and I mean a lot, of stuff that we will never hear about going on behind the closed doors of the CIA/FBI/ATF/etc.

*Joke time!*
ATF; Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. That should be the name of a store, not the name of a government agency. (back to topic)

He who has the power and influence to prevent a crime and doesn't do it takes a part of responsibility for the actions of criminal.

In other words, if Iran supplies terrorist with nuclear material and people get killed part of the responsibility will fall on US for not reacting when they should have (same goes for whole NATO) and any other country in the world which was capable of blowing away Iranian nuclear reactors.

I hope it is still not too late.

Without massive bloodshed,without completely destroying the markets that make production possible, without making Russia even more of a threat - there's no way the US can bomb/invade Iran.

The answer to Russia? I have no clue - but having Putin and his closest buddies take a dirt nap wouldn't be a bad place to start. A pro-democracy leader would have to take his place of course. That would take care of much of the Russian influence in Iran. When/if that happens, or when he is out of office the election actually is fair (don't hold your breath) and a pro-democracy leader is elected - you'll see Iran pretty much piss in its pants.

They'll have no more nuclear materials, support, technology, hardware, and human resources to continue their quest. Remove all the Russian influence and you'll have the world's largest non-functional nuclear program. No bombs dropped, no civilians killed, and a very-very weak Iran. All it would really take, or at least should take according to my not-so-informed theory, is a couple dead Russian political leaders, the closest people they work with, and maybe a few other commie bastards. That's in a perfect world though...

After that is accomplished, Iran will be very vulnerable b/c: they don't have the Russians backing them with arms/nukes and oil prices will drop causing Iran to struggle paying its bills. If whoever takes the Russian office is pro-USA, or better yet - is put in the office b/c of US intelligence intervention, that person can very much control how much money goes into Iran. Remember, nearly 90% of Iran's income is from oil - if Russia floods the market and prices drop, Iran is screwed.

In Iran, the young population is key. If America can somehow show that a western lifestyle is pretty darn good - another revolution could begin. That'll take propaganda, and lots of it. If young Iran can overthrow the ayatollah and set-up a non-sharia democracy - they'll be very proud (and rightfully so), they'll stamp out terrorism, and join the world market and prosper.

Hmm... That all sounds like a great movie plot. Not so much Saving Private Ryan but more Spy Game

Part I: Russia
Sequel: Iran

Any venture capitalists here?

[manchild]

I know Russia is causing most of the global problems ever since 1917 but Russian dictators are not dictators in the expected meaning of that world. Dictators emerge from a backward society, it produces them. Masses have urge to follow someone and when you have a strong influence of church as Russian orthodox church is than you get society shaped to be masochistic for hundreds of years. Absolute rulers & clergy exploiting masses, an old story.

That's what you have in Russia today. If it wasn't Putin it would be someone else, name is of no importance. A proof? If hundreds of millions of people wouldn't like what someone in Kremlin is doing they wouldn't vote for them anymore. If elections were fixed hundreds of millions of people would protest. None of that happening in Russia.

So the problem is in mentality of masses and in fact that instead of helping youth of Russia who dreamed about brotherhood with west that same west did nothing to help them better their life and now those generations of people who were young some 15-17 years ago are in their 30s and 40s living a shitty life. All they got from democracy and west was prostitution, drugs, mafia and feudalistic capitalism.

As long as the Russia is huge centralized country, those sitting in Moscow will be able to manipulate with domestic and foreign affairs as they please. You can't have a country as big as Russia with centralized power and expect it to be democratic, progressive, humane etc.

Is there essential difference between Putin, Brezhnev, Stalin and Nikolai II Romanov? No there isn't. No human rights, no prosperity, no humanity, enrichment of the few close to those on power, full jails, police and army all over the place, confrontation with free world as something normal... Always was, still is and will be as long as majority in Russia doesn't figure out that their main enemy is ANY strong hand regime that will pull strings from Moscow.

If at least there was a bipolar situation inside of Russia, but no, they have much worse people than Putin lined up to take over. That's why west supports Putin choosing worse of two evils (or in this case more than two) even though they know that in the long term that won't bring solution but only make inevitable "amputation" more difficult as the gangrene takes over more and more of the healthy tissue.

...

And let me mention this that has no direct link with this post but has with my technocratic viewpoints in general:

Democracy - Political system where votes of a pimp, drug dealer and a religious fanatic are worth as much as votes of a Nobel prize winner, humanitarian worker and medical doctor.

[Giancarlo]

If elections were fixed hundreds of millions of people would protest. None of that happening in Russia.

Ummm: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10693286/

That happened yesterday in Russia. Now it wasn't a huge protest - but it's a start. What happened? People got beat-up and freedom of speech/assembly was squashed. Either the people will be submissive b/c of fear or they will become emboldened to lash out against their crap government. The US needs to give the latter a big push.

The CIA having a few Chechnyans on speed-dial might help too...

[manchild]

Protesting against Putin doesn't mean necessary that the ones who protest are better than Putin is. I have no info who is behind those protest you linked but the guy dragged by police is holding a flag with a hammer and sickle so if that symbol stands for all who protested than no thank you, Putin is bad but better than communists.

I don't get what you mean when you mention CIA and Chechens. Chechnya suffered so much under Russian imperialism, now they're victims of Islamic fundamentalist and the fact that many people equalize them with imported hard-core Islamists.

Russia should let them be free but Islamist should stop "helping" them too. If Russia is more sane then Islamists than it should let Chechens be free if for nothing else than as a gratitude for what Chechens did during WWII (stopping German army in front of the Moscow). But Russians are in Chechnya because of oil and Russia also depends on oil as much as US does so the conclusion is identical.

[manchild]

Saudi gang rape victim faces 90 lashes AFP

March 5, 2007

RIYADH -- A Saudi woman who was kidnapped at knifepoint, gang raped, and then beaten by her brother has been sentenced to 90 lashes - for meeting a man who was not a relative, a newspaper reported Monday.

In an interview with the Saudi Gazette, the 19-year-old said she was blackmailed a year ago into meeting a man who threatened to tell her family they were having a relationship outside wedlock, which is illegal in the ultra-conservative desert kingdom.

After driving off together from a shopping mall near her home, the woman and the man were stopped and abducted by a gang of men wielding kitchen knives who took them to a farm where she was raped 14 times by her captors.

Five men were arrested for the rape and given jail terms ranging from 10 months to five years by a panel of judges in the eastern city of Qatif, near the woman's hometown.

But the judges also decided to sentence the woman, identified by the newspaper only as "G," and the man to lashing for being alone together in the car.

Unrelated men and women are forbidden from interacting in public in Saudi Arabia, which strictly enforces Islamic Sharia law.

"G" said one of the judges told she was lucky not to have been given jail time. "I was shocked at the verdict. I could not believe my ears," said the woman, who has appealed against her sentence.

The woman also told the paper she tried to commit suicide because of her ordeal and was beaten by her younger brother because the rape had brought shame on their family.

Fuziyah Al Ouni, described as an activist by the paper, said she was outraged by the case. "By sentencing her to 90 lashes they are sending a message that she is guilty. No rape victim is guilty," she said.

There are severe legal restrictions on women in Saudi Arabia, including a strict dress code required outside the home and a ban on driving.

http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?St ... 1344-3364r

So, no presence of foreign troops in Saudi Arabia, no war, no poverty, no terrorism... nothing to provoke such monstrosities except Islamic law by default. And yes, no excuses. That is simply evil that shouldn't be tolerated and should be destroyed for the sake of innocent victims. Someone can call it religion, misinterpretation, ideology, tradition... it simply doesn't matter in which form it is presented and what legal status it has. Must be destroyed.