quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
I think the point is that these actions are not representative of a "moderate" society that is trying to "lead the rest of the Middle East toward a brighter future."

You are deliberately dicing up my words because you can't argue with what I actually write.

You mean you didn't write this -

quote:

The thing is, the Saudis are the moderates in the area. They truly are our friends, and the hope is that they will climb into the current century as the world continues to shrink because they're mingling with us through the wonders of modern travel and communication and help to lead the rest of the Middle East towards a brighter future.

Who did, then? Again, I am convinced that you genuinely don't get how completely illogical and contradictory your positions are. It's not our fault that when we repeat them back to you, they make no sense. They already made no sense before we even started repeating them back.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

With respect Mike, showing how Sanity has gone off the rails is probably a task for which someone suitably qualified would be more appropriate; a behavioural psychologist for instance.

E

quote:

Which do you think it more hypocritical; applying 'Western' standards to a distinctively different, autonomous culture, or doing it selectively when the culture's practice does, or doesn't, fit into your political philosophy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

2nd Edit

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
It is the Saudi authorities that tried and convicted him. Tourist or Pilgrim I fail to see the distinction. As I said to merc, the so called crime took place outside Saudi, not inside.

Polite, in many places throughout the world, you have to be aware and adapt to local laws or be prepared to accept the consequences. Whether true or not in this case that the 'crime' took place outside Saudi Arabia, as a tourist, 'pilgrim', the expectation of 'exceptional treatment' is foolish.

Anywhere we travel we make sure we're fully aware of the local laws and either follow them or assume to live with the consequence of disobeying; granted none as draconian as in this case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

On the other side we in Western countries prosecute and jail child molestors. That probably outrages people in Saudi Arabia.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Maybe but I doubt it. Look, we have confronted many on our belief in something called human rights. Even in the most general sense, by far most of the worlds countries have signed on. You recall those rights...correct ? The ones that were 'self-evident, inalienable, endowed not by govt. but by our creator ?'

Yet, it is all about the oil and trade because we in our great conversation have never told them the only logical conclusion one must draw from their culture.

We are told by the Chinese and others including Islam that while we in the west in its still admirable and still very young experiment in freedom, has all of these problems, they tell us that their culture dictates that the countries' leaders (arbitrary, hereditary and often by assassination) through something called a theocracy or political party doctrine will decide just what 'human rights' one has.

I will not equivocate there is only one logical conclusion one can make...Islam and the Chinese in particular, are all...less then human. That's it period.

A culture that allows one arbitrary set of 'human beings' to decide that another human being, a foreigner and tourist no less, is to die by beheading no less, because he offended their theocratic sensibilities...confirms itself as a primitive culture, and are such cultures that obviously must be seen as...less than human.

Some will go so far as to suggest that Islam seeks to make all people, human beings...slave to their culture.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

I'm remarkably consistent because what I write I write from my heart.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub
I am keeping score, though...

Trolls 477,586
Thomas 2

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

Now this is so blatant, it really is a test of what kind of board we are going to have here. Panda is mis representing what sanity wrote.

No where did Sanity say "(SA) is Trying to lead......" He wrote "the hope is they will help lead..." Most of us are capable of diagraming a sentance, or maybeamny of you are not....the idea that the tense of a verb matters may be over some posters heads.

So is Panda deliberatly acting dumb? Or is he actually unable to follow a complex sentance?

Come on all the lefties that pretend to be in favor of reason and actuall debate.....What say you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda


But the point is, the royal family of Saudi Arabia wants to run their country as though they were still in the Dark Ages. The only reason they get away with it is because we support them and enable their atrocities. If it were possible to withdraw that support, their regime would collapse and they'd be hung like dogs in the street by the people they've been oppressing and mutilating for almost a century. Personally, I'd like to see that happen. It'd be bloody and it'd be chaotic, but in the long run probably far less so than the current state of affairs, and it's almost certainly inevitable at some point anyway. I'd like to see us step back and let them work it out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
Muslims who proselytise do not seek to enslave their prospective converts after all but to help them to realise the error of their former ways and to come into a better way of life as a means of furthering their well being.

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Believe it or not, the USSR seems to have worked a lot better for the average type in the street, at least if they didn't get purged. There's a lot of Russians who miss it now.

I'm not sure you're right about the other, though: the Iranian revolution was more loathsome for its aftermath than the carnage that took place during it, and seems a more relevant comparison than the Russian revolution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Heh, funny you should point to Iran, the poster child for withdrawing support for a moderate monarchy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


I've known some Iranians who fled the Revolutionary Guard, mike. They missed the old days of the Shah, and they weren't the only ones. The Iranians are wonderful people, its their horrific government who I resent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

You do understand that was a most qualified "sanity is right" post don't you?
Given your clapping hands I would invite Lady E back to explain to you just where and just how often you have gone off the fucking rails over the last 5 pages.
By the way please point out where and who suggested we stop "talking" to them....I know you won't find a post of mine that states that..... changing the conversation would suit me fine, the conversation needs a switch in tenor and tone.
       Finally lets all go back and take a look at your Iran post....yanno the one where you characterised Iran under the Shah as "bright,energetic and vibrant country".....I'm just sitting here wondering why the country you are describing was ripe for revolution.Please name for me the previous examples from history of bright energetic and vibrant countries that experience cataclysmic regime changes.Let me help you here Sanity....zip,nada and none.....The Shah's secret police,trained by our CIA by the way,was a brutal and effective tool in keeping the Shah in power....so to sum up here....You don't really give a shit what conditions these people live under,as long as they will get in bed with the U.S. they are alright with Sanity.
That's cool,some might even call that a pragmatic approach to the world.....but for you to dress that up as an enlightened outlook ,where you take the role of a live and let live sort of guy....is just too much bullshit.You are a lying hypocrite who could care less about respecting the culture of others.....that argument coming from your "mouth" is insulting to the intelligence of the reader.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub

Thomas, relax... it was a joke. I set it up as a joke, I just didn't think it would be you who would help deliver the punchline.

It might surprise you to know that I don't think you have been entirely wrong in this thread. Sometimes your conclusions are correct, but the logic and reason you use to get there is often very flawed, so people tend to focus on the "means" rather than the "end." The attacks are often disproportionate to the offense, but that has as much to do with your style as it does with the substance. Just trying to throw you a bone here, as I have intentionally kept my dogs out of this fight.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

~ Fast Questions ~

From a standing position of non-intervention and believing that any Country should be self determining regarding how they choose to live with, kill, or judge and punish each other under their law; a couple of questions come to mind while reading the comments on this situation.

Which do you think it more hypocritical; applying 'Western' standards to a distinctively different, autonomous culture, or doing it selectively when the culture's practice does, or doesn't, fit into your political philosophy?

When does an 'indigenous people' lose their status regarding having their culture 'protected' and come under scrutiny if someone who happens to voluntarily enter their autonomous domain violates a rule and is subjected to their legal system and consequences?

Just curious...

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee
P1: That's not what you said before
P2: Prove it
P1: Why should I prove your words?
P2: Because you're the one who brought them up and I remember last summer when you wanted me to provide links about the bullshit you said and then I said, "fine," and then I did and you didn't have anything to say, even after I repeatedly pointed out to you that you had said it and I had proven it with the links and now you're trying to get me to admit it again.
P1: You're a (moron, ass, dumbshit, etc.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

~ Fast Questions ~

From a standing position of non-intervention and believing that any Country should be self determining regarding how they choose to live with, kill, or judge and punish each other under their law; a couple of questions come to mind while reading the comments on this situation.

Which do you think it more hypocritical; applying 'Western' standards to a distinctively different, autonomous culture, or doing it selectively when the culture's practice does, or doesn't, fit into your political philosophy?

When does an 'indigenous people' lose their status regarding having their culture 'protected' and come under scrutiny if someone who happens to voluntarily enter their autonomous domain violates a rule and is subjected to their legal system and consequences?

Just curious...