Paul's Here

Raped Woman Goes to Jail

27 posts in this topic

If anyone needs to grasp the concept of barbarism, here is some evidence as to its meaning.

Saudi Arabia's Justice Ministry said a girl who it sentenced to jail time and flogging after being gang raped by seven men was an adulteress who invited the attack because at the time she was partially dressed in a parked car with her lover.

The statement from the ministry, carried by the Saudi Press Agency late Saturday, defended the court's decision to sentence the girl to six months in prison and 200 lashes for violating the country's strict sex segregation laws.

It also sought to ease international outrage over the case by discrediting the woman who had told reporters earlier that she was meeting a friend from high school when the attack occurred.

"The Saudi justice minister expressed his regret about the media reports over the role of the women in this case which put out false information and wrongly defended her," the statement said. "The charged girl is a married woman who confessed to having an affair with the man she was caught with."

Known only as the "Girl from Qatif," the 19-year-old rape victim said she was a newlywed who was meeting a high school friend in his car to retrieve a picture of herself from him when the attack occurred in the eastern city of Qatif. While in a car with him, two men got into the vehicle and drove them to a secluded area where others waited, and then she and her companion were both raped.

The ministry's latest account of the incident alleges that the woman and her lover met in his car for a tryst "in a dark place where they stayed for a while."

"Then they were spotted by the other defendants as the woman was in an indecent condition as she had tossed away her clothes, then the assault occurred on her and the man," the statement added.

It said the sentence of prison and lashes, handed down last week following an appeal, was legal and followed the "the book of God and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad," noting that she had "confessed to doing what God has forbidden."

The woman and her husband were "convinced of the verdict and agreed to it," it said.

The girl was initially sentenced to prison and 90 lashes for being alone with a man not related to her. When her lawyer, Abdul Rahman al-Lahem, appealed the sentence, he was removed from the case, his license was suspended and the penalty was doubled to 200 lashes.

Saudi Says Rape Victim Was Adulteress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Later on in the article it says "Justice in Saudi Arabia is administered by...(explanation of Saudi court system)." I know journalists are supposed to be detached but to say that Saudi Arabia's courts have anything to do with justice is simply reporting false information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorite part about this is no matter how much they try to show her as a "bad person," they still sentenced her to prison with lashes for being RAPED.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why aren't the feminists marching in the streets when a real issue comes up? Dammed hypocrites don't know what to do if they can't blame capitalism and white men. Political correctness has them at a loss for words when they should be surrounding the embassy. If it isn't Global Capitalism or Global Warming they let it pass. Whatever issues they care about, it isn't individual rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Later on in the article it says "Justice in Saudi Arabia is administered by...(explanation of Saudi court system)." I know journalists are supposed to be detached but to say that Saudi Arabia's courts have anything to do with justice is simply reporting false information.

Not if they're a multiculturalist. Each culture is as good as any other, and so are their definitions of concepts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why aren't the feminists marching in the streets when a real issue comes up?

I think they share the same nihilist philosophy as the environmentalists. The feminists don't really give a damn about women, that's a cover for their hatred of men. The environmentalists don't really give a damn about "the environment", it's a cover for their hatred of all of humanity including themselves. And logically there's bound to be overlap between the two (i.e. feminists who are environmentalists.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why aren't the feminists marching in the streets when a real issue comes up?

During my senior year of college in the early 90s, I was part of a program basically run by graduate students in a "community psychology" program. They were all women and staunch, radical feminists. One conversation I had with several of them involved their (appropriate) outrage at the genital mutilation of women in such countries as it happened. This was the first I'd heard of it and was truly disgusted, along with them. Presumably they were also outraged at other practices, such as what has happened to the poor woman in the story that started this thread. So, there was a time when they did speak out against these things, but I think their anti-war, anti-Republican or conservative views trump this. And, as Paul's Here pointed out, it may be that their multiculturalism has trumped their common sense now, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
During my senior year of college in the early 90s, I was part of a program basically run by graduate students in a "community psychology" program. They were all women and staunch, radical feminists. One conversation I had with several of them involved their (appropriate) outrage at the genital mutilation of women in such countries as it happened. This was the first I'd heard of it and was truly disgusted, along with them. Presumably they were also outraged at other practices, such as what has happened to the poor woman in the story that started this thread. So, there was a time when they did speak out against these things, but I think their anti-war, anti-Republican or conservative views trump this. And, as Paul's Here pointed out, it may be that their multiculturalism has trumped their common sense now, too.

Plus you have to remember that if the women try to show that this Islamic policy was immoral the Muslims will riot and kill a thousand people to show people how life-loving their religion is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
During my senior year of college in the early 90s, I was part of a program basically run by graduate students in a "community psychology" program. They were all women and staunch, radical feminists. One conversation I had with several of them involved their (appropriate) outrage at the genital mutilation of women in such countries as it happened. This was the first I'd heard of it and was truly disgusted, along with them. Presumably they were also outraged at other practices, such as what has happened to the poor woman in the story that started this thread. So, there was a time when they did speak out against these things, but I think their anti-war, anti-Republican or conservative views trump this. And, as Paul's Here pointed out, it may be that their multiculturalism has trumped their common sense now, too.

Plus you have to remember that if the women try to show that this Islamic policy was immoral the Muslims will riot and kill a thousand people to show people how life-loving their religion is.

As with any pressure group, these anti-conceptual women function like predatory animals. They gauge whom and how far they can push before they get pushed back, en lieu of consistently fighting for actual rational principles. When fighting the Western male, they have his altruism and skepticism as allies. But the Muslim male gives no such quarter, and can dish out the guilt, outrage, and moral relativism better than any feminist could dream of. Not only would Muslim men respond to criticism of sharia with riots, they would threaten the feminists themselves, and the women know this. They are silent out of their survival instinct and their regard of radical Muslims as the enemy of their enemy (civilization).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As with any pressure group, these anti-conceptual women function like predatory animals. They gauge whom and how far they can push before they get pushed back, en lieu of consistently fighting for actual rational principles. When fighting the Western male, they have his altruism and skepticism as allies. But the Muslim male gives no such quarter, and can dish out the guilt, outrage, and moral relativism better than any feminist could dream of. Not only would Muslim men respond to criticism of sharia with riots, they would threaten the feminists themselves, and the women know this. They are silent out of their survival instinct and their regard of radical Muslims as the enemy of their enemy (civilization).

Right on target. They are hypocrites as I said. Years ago I noticed the same thing with protests against South Africa while the thugs farther north got ignored. If individual rights were the issue, condemnation would have been far broader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plus you have to remember that if the women try to show that this Islamic policy was immoral the Muslims will riot and kill a thousand people to show people how life-loving their religion is.

Wait, I thought Islam was the religion of peace. That's what Bush said on TV, and he can't be wrong. He just can't. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting historical point that I have always thought of-What is the only major religion that began and was spread by the sword?

Hinduism? (no)

Buddhism? (no)

Daoism? (no)

Confuciansim? (no)

Judaism? (no)

Christianity? (no)

Islam?

...

I rest my case under the burden of historical proof :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plus you have to remember that if the women try to show that this Islamic policy was immoral the Muslims will riot and kill a thousand people to show people how life-loving their religion is.

Wait, I thought Islam was the religion of peace. That's what Bush said on TV, and he can't be wrong. He just can't. :D

Ed, it was hijacked. Okay? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An interesting historical point that I have always thought of-What is the only major religion that began and was spread by the sword?

Hinduism? (no)

Buddhism? (no)

Daoism? (no)

Confuciansim? (no)

Judaism? (no)

Christianity? (no)

Islam?

...

I rest my case under the burden of historical proof :D

Are you honestly saying that Christianity was not at least in part spread by the sword and other coercive measures?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An interesting historical point that I have always thought of-What is the only major religion that began and was spread by the sword?

Hinduism? (no)

Buddhism? (no)

Daoism? (no)

Confuciansim? (no)

Judaism? (no)

Christianity? (no)

Islam?

...

I rest my case under the burden of historical proof :D

Are you honestly saying that Christianity was not at least in part spread by the sword and other coercive measures?

I think the key issue is "began and was spread by." I take that to mean that the founder of the religion was a militant religionist who personally used the sword to convert people. Islam is the only one with those credentials that I know of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this phrase from Atlas (at the pivotal point where Francisco is discussing philosophy with Rearden) answers any claim that Christianity is innocuous:

Man's motive power is his moral code. Ask yourself where their code is leading you and what it offers you as your final goal. A viler evil than to murder a man, is to sell him suicide as an act of virtue. A viler evil than to throw a man into a sacrificial furnace, is to demand that he leap in, of his own will, and that he build the furnace, besides.

A nearly perfect description of what is, in fact, happening with the so-called war, especially the Peace Corp soldiers, but also Americans who are told they must sacrifice to a socialistic state while remaining actually undefended from their killers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An interesting historical point that I have always thought of-What is the only major religion that began and was spread by the sword?

Hinduism? (no)

Buddhism? (no)

Daoism? (no)

Confuciansim? (no)

Judaism? (no)

Christianity? (no)

Islam?

...

I rest my case under the burden of historical proof :D

Are you honestly saying that Christianity was not at least in part spread by the sword and other coercive measures?

It took Christianity almost 800 years (!) to enter into some stages of violence. The worst of them all, the Spanish Inquisition, took place over 1000 years after Christianity happened. Are these acts horrible? Of course. But my point, as Paul pointed out, is that even Christianity did spread from its inception by conquest or killings.

I'm not trying to justify or defend any religion, but merely pointing out the historical fact that of all major religions, Islam is the only one whose founder himself raped little children and murdered whole towns. Can you say the same of Jesus or Siddhartha?

The relevence of this, then, is that when Christians or Hindus or Buddhist go back to their sacred texts and try and emulate the life of their founder, the basis for this is peace. But when the Muslim reads his holy text and tries to emulate his founder, his only answer is rape, torture, conquest, and violence. Thus, unlike any other religion, Islam is violent to its core.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this phrase from Atlas (at the pivotal point where Francisco is discussing philosophy with Rearden) answers any claim that Christianity is innocuous:
Man's motive power is his moral code. Ask yourself where their code is leading you and what it offers you as your final goal. A viler evil than to murder a man, is to sell him suicide as an act of virtue. A viler evil than to throw a man into a sacrificial furnace, is to demand that he leap in, of his own will, and that he build the furnace, besides.

A nearly perfect description of what is, in fact, happening with the so-called war, especially the Peace Corp soldiers, but also Americans who are told they must sacrifice to a socialistic state while remaining actually undefended from their killers.

Sad how much of a distorted picture the liberal media likes to give, eh?

From an expert who has been there and has also spoken with our troops, read: this, this, or this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It took Christianity almost 800 years (!) to enter into some stages of violence. The worst of them all, the Spanish Inquisition, took place over 1000 years after Christianity happened. Are these acts horrible? Of course. But my point, as Paul pointed out, is that even Christianity did spread from its inception by conquest or killings.

I'm not trying to justify or defend any religion, but merely pointing out the historical fact that of all major religions, Islam is the only one whose founder himself raped little children and murdered whole towns. Can you say the same of Jesus or Siddhartha?

The relevence of this, then, is that when Christians or Hindus or Buddhist go back to their sacred texts and try and emulate the life of their founder, the basis for this is peace. But when the Muslim reads his holy text and tries to emulate his founder, his only answer is rape, torture, conquest, and violence. Thus, unlike any other religion, Islam is violent to its core.

And more so, as someone who has studied the Bible a decent amount, I don't think it would even be fair to consider the Spanish Inquisition an act of Christianity, or a Christian act. I think it was a product of the times, not the religion itself.

There is nothing in Christianity that by itself would motivate or command a Christian to force others to convert by means of torture, persecution or war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A nearly perfect description of what is, in fact, happening with the so-called war...

Phil, when you militarily invade a foreign nation against the wishes of the world community, destroy their government and arrest, kill, and/or execute their leaders, then atop the ashes attempt to create an entirely new government overseen by your own nation, that is the definition of war.

Despite all the negative things happening, don't forget that Saddam Hussein and regime are dead and gone because of the United States declaring war on them. That is definitely worth something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A nearly perfect description of what is, in fact, happening with the so-called war...

Phil, when you militarily invade a foreign nation against the wishes of the world community, destroy their government and arrest, kill, and/or execute their leaders, then atop the ashes attempt to create an entirely new government overseen by your own nation, that is the definition of war.

Despite all the negative things happening, don't forget that Saddam Hussein and regime are dead and gone because of the United States declaring war on them. That is definitely worth something.

Before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, we offered the reins of our national defense to every member of the U.N. in an attempt to build a "coalition of the willing". We asked the world for permission and assistance in destroying a hostile regime, because we didn't have the conviction ourselves.

Then we conducted surgical strikes against key individuals and buildings, to show the world that we were after only a handful of people, not the entire population that put the handful of people in power, supported them, and demonstrates daily that they are incapable of recognizing rights, and live only to perpetuate gang warfare. We told our infantrymen, you are prohibited from firing until fired upon, you may use force only in proportion to countering force, you may not torture enemies (with which Sen. John McCain is in staunch agreement), you may not use force against civilians, and on and on with military lawyers and checks up the chain of command and other rules of engagement compromises on one's life in a chaotic firefight in a sandy, worthless hellhole.

We fought for the first couple on months. Since then, it's been a sacrificial social services campaign. Beg and bribe one tribal gang to get along with another tribal gang for the range-of-the-moment goal, until that predictably unravels and another compromise is needed. Replace one tyrant with other tyrants, and ask the new tyrants if they approve. Do nothing to stop foreign terrorists from coming in and waging war against us. Place suicidal conditions on our soldiers, and then disgracefully court martial a few scapegoats who defended themselves in no-win situations. Heap billions of taxpayer-funded aid upon them, without demanding results that end in our benefit. Heap billions of taxpayer-funded aid upon sworn enemies (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Palestinian Territories, Jordan, Pakistan, etc.), while denying that they are enemies. Apologize, sanction, equivocate.

That's not a war. It may be a (limited) use of force, but it isn't a war. War requires that the just country put the security of its people above all considerations. That means the enemy's welfare is irrelevant, however one rationalizes its ultimate benefit to us. War requires that the just country use every destructive means at its disposal to defeat the enemy as quickly and decisively as possible. The only check on the use of such means is the cost to the just country's own people.

We pull our punches, clean up the mess they forced us to make, prostrate ourselves for any primacy-of-consciousness perceived insult, and, arguably worst of all, we refuse to say that we're right to defend ourselves. Everything we do is for someone else's benefit, and the result is that we are more vulnerable to militant Islam than before.

If we're still around when the United States ever again decides to fight its enemies for keeps, we won't have to measure our success with convoluted geo-strategic analyses, or nth-degree political projections, or troop morale surveys. We'll know we're safe because we'll feel it in our bones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, we offered the reins of our national defense to every member of the U.N. in an attempt to build a "coalition of the willing". We asked the world for permission and assistance in destroying a hostile regime, because we didn't have the conviction ourselves.

If we didn't have the conviction ourselves, then why did we go to war?

Then we conducted surgical strikes against key individuals and buildings, to show the world that we were after only a handful of people, not the entire population that put the handful of people in power, supported them, and demonstrates daily that they are incapable of recognizing rights, and live only to perpetuate gang warfare.

These surgical strikes saved countless lives of American Soldiers. They also enabled America to topple Iraq in what is considered one of the greatest military victories in all of history.

We told our infantrymen, you are prohibited from firing until fired upon, you may use force only in proportion to countering force, you may not torture enemies (with which Sen. John McCain is in staunch agreement), you may not use force against civilians, and on and on with military lawyers and checks up the chain of command and other rules of engagement compromises on one's life in a chaotic firefight in a sandy, worthless hellhole.

Except for a few tragic moments (and these were all over the media), may I have proof of a general strategy like this?

We fought for the first couple on months. Since then, it's been a sacrificial social services campaign. Beg and bribe one tribal gang to get along with another tribal gang for the range-of-the-moment goal, until that predictably unravels and another compromise is needed. Replace one tyrant with other tyrants, and ask the new tyrants if they approve. Do nothing to stop foreign terrorists from coming in and waging war against us. Place suicidal conditions on our soldiers, and then disgracefully court martial a few scapegoats who defended themselves in no-win situations. Heap billions of taxpayer-funded aid upon them, without demanding results that end in our benefit. Heap billions of taxpayer-funded aid upon sworn enemies (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Palestinian Territories, Jordan, Pakistan, etc.), while denying that they are enemies. Apologize, sanction, equivocate.

So we are losing in Iraq? Our efforts are in vain? See the facts in this post

That's not a war. It may be a (limited) use of force, but it isn't a war.

Defeating a nation and toppling its leader isn't war?

War requires that the just country put the security of its people above all considerations. That means the enemy's welfare is irrelevant, however one rationalizes its ultimate benefit to us. War requires that the just country use every destructive means at its disposal to defeat the enemy as quickly and decisively as possible. The only check on the use of such means is the cost to the just country's own people.

Maybe an ideal war-but can you give me such an example where all of these principles in history were met (hint-it has happened, but not recently).

We pull our punches, clean up the mess they forced us to make, prostrate ourselves for any primacy-of-consciousness perceived insult, and, arguably worst of all, we refuse to say that we're right to defend ourselves. Everything we do is for someone else's benefit, and the result is that we are more vulnerable to militant Islam than before.

Why are their attacks decreasing? Why is Iraq becoming more and more stable? Why has another 9-11 not happened?

If we're still around when the United States ever again decides to fight its enemies for keeps, we won't have to measure our success with convoluted geo-strategic analyses, or nth-degree political projections, or troop morale surveys. We'll know we're safe because we'll feel it in our bones.

Last time I checked, America is nowhere near "on-the-way-out."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A nearly perfect description of what is, in fact, happening with the so-called war...

Phil, when you militarily invade a foreign nation against the wishes of the world community, destroy their government and arrest, kill, and/or execute their leaders, then atop the ashes attempt to create an entirely new government overseen by your own nation, that is the definition of war.

Despite all the negative things happening, don't forget that Saddam Hussein and regime are dead and gone because of the United States declaring war on them. That is definitely worth something.

Before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, we offered the reins of our national defense to every member of the U.N. in an attempt to build a "coalition of the willing". We asked the world for permission and assistance in destroying a hostile regime, because we didn't have the conviction ourselves.

Then we conducted surgical strikes against key individuals and buildings, to show the world that we were after only a handful of people, not the entire population that put the handful of people in power, supported them, and demonstrates daily that they are incapable of recognizing rights, and live only to perpetuate gang warfare. We told our infantrymen, you are prohibited from firing until fired upon, you may use force only in proportion to countering force, you may not torture enemies (with which Sen. John McCain is in staunch agreement), you may not use force against civilians, and on and on with military lawyers and checks up the chain of command and other rules of engagement compromises on one's life in a chaotic firefight in a sandy, worthless hellhole.

We fought for the first couple on months. Since then, it's been a sacrificial social services campaign. Beg and bribe one tribal gang to get along with another tribal gang for the range-of-the-moment goal, until that predictably unravels and another compromise is needed. Replace one tyrant with other tyrants, and ask the new tyrants if they approve. Do nothing to stop foreign terrorists from coming in and waging war against us. Place suicidal conditions on our soldiers, and then disgracefully court martial a few scapegoats who defended themselves in no-win situations. Heap billions of taxpayer-funded aid upon them, without demanding results that end in our benefit. Heap billions of taxpayer-funded aid upon sworn enemies (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Palestinian Territories, Jordan, Pakistan, etc.), while denying that they are enemies. Apologize, sanction, equivocate.

That's not a war. It may be a (limited) use of force, but it isn't a war. War requires that the just country put the security of its people above all considerations. That means the enemy's welfare is irrelevant, however one rationalizes its ultimate benefit to us. War requires that the just country use every destructive means at its disposal to defeat the enemy as quickly and decisively as possible. The only check on the use of such means is the cost to the just country's own people.

We pull our punches, clean up the mess they forced us to make, prostrate ourselves for any primacy-of-consciousness perceived insult, and, arguably worst of all, we refuse to say that we're right to defend ourselves. Everything we do is for someone else's benefit, and the result is that we are more vulnerable to militant Islam than before.

If we're still around when the United States ever again decides to fight its enemies for keeps, we won't have to measure our success with convoluted geo-strategic analyses, or nth-degree political projections, or troop morale surveys. We'll know we're safe because we'll feel it in our bones.

It is going to be a long time before any war will be fought properly. Until then, look at the successes of the war. We have toppled an anti-American Fascist regime we have slaughtered thousands of terrorists, we have brought about a universal message to the world saying, "If you attack or support an enemy who attacks us, we WILL fight back." This war is not the colossal failure that the media is putting it out to be. Even look at the causality rate, and how LOW it actually is. It is one of the lowest in the history of wars. Sure the war isn't being fought in the most proper of ways, but since WWII, when has a war been fought properly. Don't look at what will be perfect, but look at what will be the best of two evils. Not doing anything and letting them kill our civilians, or fight them on their land, and push them back to their country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A nearly perfect description of what is, in fact, happening with the so-called war...

Phil, when you militarily invade a foreign nation against the wishes of the world community, destroy their government and arrest, kill, and/or execute their leaders, then atop the ashes attempt to create an entirely new government overseen by your own nation, that is the definition of war.

Despite all the negative things happening, don't forget that Saddam Hussein and regime are dead and gone because of the United States declaring war on them. That is definitely worth something.

Before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, we offered the reins of our national defense to every member of the U.N. in an attempt to build a "coalition of the willing". We asked the world for permission and assistance in destroying a hostile regime, because we didn't have the conviction ourselves.

Then we conducted surgical strikes against key individuals and buildings, to show the world that we were after only a handful of people, not the entire population that put the handful of people in power, supported them, and demonstrates daily that they are incapable of recognizing rights, and live only to perpetuate gang warfare. We told our infantrymen, you are prohibited from firing until fired upon, you may use force only in proportion to countering force, you may not torture enemies (with which Sen. John McCain is in staunch agreement), you may not use force against civilians, and on and on with military lawyers and checks up the chain of command and other rules of engagement compromises on one's life in a chaotic firefight in a sandy, worthless hellhole.

We fought for the first couple on months. Since then, it's been a sacrificial social services campaign. Beg and bribe one tribal gang to get along with another tribal gang for the range-of-the-moment goal, until that predictably unravels and another compromise is needed. Replace one tyrant with other tyrants, and ask the new tyrants if they approve. Do nothing to stop foreign terrorists from coming in and waging war against us. Place suicidal conditions on our soldiers, and then disgracefully court martial a few scapegoats who defended themselves in no-win situations. Heap billions of taxpayer-funded aid upon them, without demanding results that end in our benefit. Heap billions of taxpayer-funded aid upon sworn enemies (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Palestinian Territories, Jordan, Pakistan, etc.), while denying that they are enemies. Apologize, sanction, equivocate.

That's not a war. It may be a (limited) use of force, but it isn't a war. War requires that the just country put the security of its people above all considerations. That means the enemy's welfare is irrelevant, however one rationalizes its ultimate benefit to us. War requires that the just country use every destructive means at its disposal to defeat the enemy as quickly and decisively as possible. The only check on the use of such means is the cost to the just country's own people.

We pull our punches, clean up the mess they forced us to make, prostrate ourselves for any primacy-of-consciousness perceived insult, and, arguably worst of all, we refuse to say that we're right to defend ourselves. Everything we do is for someone else's benefit, and the result is that we are more vulnerable to militant Islam than before.

If we're still around when the United States ever again decides to fight its enemies for keeps, we won't have to measure our success with convoluted geo-strategic analyses, or nth-degree political projections, or troop morale surveys. We'll know we're safe because we'll feel it in our bones.

And not a single bit of this invalidates the fact that the United States of America invaded a nation by military force, toppled its government, and killed its leaders. That is war, case closed.

Can we all just step back from the entrenched gloom and realize what has been accomplished? I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard the same bit being repeated on this forum about how we are fighting a self-sacrificial war, we are appeasing our enemies, etc etc, ad nauseam.

Can no one appreciate the threatening message we have sent to the Middle East by doing what we have in Iraq? We have basically told the Middle East that if you are doing something we don't like, then--world opinion be damned--we are going to make war on you, destroy you, and build a new nation on your ashes. That has a very real, and practical value.

If you were the leaders of Iran, how much more seriously would you take the US's pressure to drop nuclear weapons after seeing Iraq invaded for WMD's? Let's try to step back from analyzing a string of negative concretes in isolation, and instead look at the big picture of what has been acomplished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

Can no one appreciate the threatening message we have sent to the Middle East by doing what we have in Iraq? We have basically told the Middle East that if you are doing something we don't like, then--world opinion be damned--we are going to make war on you, destroy you, and build a new nation on your ashes. That has a very real, and practical value.

If you were the leaders of Iran, how much more seriously would you take the US's pressure to drop nuclear weapons after seeing Iraq invaded for WMD's? Let's try to step back from analyzing a string of negative concretes in isolation, and instead look at the big picture of what has been acomplished.

There is a hidden assumption in you words- You assume that the Iranian leaders are rational, and are capable of understanding threats. Obviously, if you, as a rational man, were Iran's leader, you would get the message. You would rationally conclude that you have much to lose if you start a war with the US, and you would reconsider your options, so to speak.

The problem is that the Iranian leadership is not rational - the same way the Japanese leadership before WWII was irrational. They revere death, and they are brainwashed to die for Islam while killing infidels. You cannot achieve anything by threatening them - you will achieve something only by acting against them and destroying them.

The Iranian leadership will take you seriously only if America or Israel act militarily against them. The measures can be debated - Nuke them or invade them or whatever other option presents itself. Anything short of that is useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites