Saudis Behead Woman for Practicing Witchcraft

[Vort]

I'm guessing the OP was setting up a straw man (war against Saudi Arabia) as a way of mocking our wars with Iraq and Afghanistan, and our alleged belligerance towards Iran.

That's not how I read it. Hoosier seemed obviously to be voicing his profound displeasure with Saudi Arabian society while simultaneously claiming that we accept such actions because we like their oil. Hoosier seems to think it's America's job to impose its values on those benighted Middle Eastern countries, by force if necessary. Unless it's a Republican in office, in which case it's war-mongering.

[sister_in_faith]

I pray for this poor woman, and all the others like her in this world who have been tortured and mistreated. It is a sad thing that our society (human society) allows these things to happen, and I pray that Heavenly Father will guide us and lead us out of these barbaric practices. I think that this example can maybe shake us up to look in our own lives and try to find things that we do that are just as displeasing to the Lord, and try to put an end to them.

That said, I don't think war is the answer. Perhaps a more diplomatic solution. Sanctions of some kind, something that let's SA know that we do not approve of those practices. In any case, it is perfectly acceptable for us to pray for them, and for the victim. Let God have mercy on those who unjustly convicted and punished her.

[RescueMom]

I pray for this poor woman, and all the others like her in this world who have been tortured and mistreated. It is a sad thing that our society (human society) allows these things to happen, and I pray that Heavenly Father will guide us and lead us out of these barbaric practices. I think that this example can maybe shake us up to look in our own lives and try to find things that we do that are just as displeasing to the Lord, and try to put an end to them.

That said, I don't think war is the answer. Perhaps a more diplomatic solution. Sanctions of some kind, something that let's SA know that we do not approve of those practices. In any case, it is perfectly acceptable for us to pray for them, and for the victim. Let God have mercy on those who unjustly convicted and punished her.

giving them the Gospel is the answer, but that won't happen without a government change. However, neither Christianity or Democracy can be forced on a people at the tip of a sword. If it is, it won't last and the people will end up hating it. And if we force people to live the gospel...we will find our selves in the same boat as the lost third.

[annewandering]

There are dozens of countries in the world that mistreat their citizens in horrible ways. As long as they keep it within their own borders, it is hard to justify sending troops into harms way. Where's the national interest? That said, to annewandering's comment that this (similar situations) is "why we go to war every time."

WWII - attacked by Japan, Germany declared war on us.

There is some question about maneuvering on our part to get us into those wars but I will grant that I support our decision to go to war in WWII. WW I not so much.

Korea and Vietnam - our communist enemies were trying to spread into previously free(er) countries.

Serious debate on both polnts here. Hardly a given.

Iraq 1 - We acted after Iraq invaded a sovereign neighbor - Kuwait.

Again serious debate on our motivations here.

Afganistan - We acted in respsonse to 9/11 invading a country that was actively supporting Al Qaeda. While Saudi's were a part of the attack, it was individuals, not the government that did so.

I was for this as well but I disagree that it was only Afganistan government that actively supported Al Qaeda. The 'individuals' in Saudi Arabia werent exactly college students on a Jihad.

Iraq 2 - We acted after years on non-compliance with UN Resolutions enacted after Iraq 1 that were designed to keep a dangerous regime in check. (Essentially it was a continuation of the first Iraq war). Intelligence available at the time - that nearly every nation in the world believed - indicated that they were working on WMD of various types. As he had used them before we had every reason to believe that he would do it again.

While that was a common belief of the public at the time, including me, it turns out it was no where that simple and honest.

All in all our motivations are rarely simple and never motivated by sheer benevolence. If it was we would be actively at war with half the world. The deciding factor is almost always financially motivated in one way or other. My previous posted comment was tongue in cheek by the way.

[Guest gopecon]

All in all our motivations are rarely simple and never motivated by sheer benevolence. If it was we would be actively at war with half the world. The deciding factor is almost always financially motivated in one way or other. My previous posted comment was tongue in cheek by the way.

We can disagree about how benevolent our motivations were or how wise the policies were that led us to go into the various wars I mentioned, but my point was that they all involved addressing other nations aggressiveness in some form or another. None of them were about bad dictatorships that mistreated their own. There have been a few times when meddled in civil wars, but the vast majority of our warfare has been addressing aggression.

[HoosierGuy]

I can't believe so many of you are against the idea of overthrowing this corrupt "kingdom."

[annewandering]

I am for it changing. A lot. Other than throwing them all in jail they are not going to change just because we defeat them in a war. We see that in Afghanistan and Iraq. My kids will testify to that and they were there and saw it. People change when they learn better. Killing them or defeating them in war doesnt teach them a whole lot except to hate us.

When the people there stand up and say NO! that is when it will change. Until then it has no chance.

[prisonchaplain]

I can't believe so many of you are against the idea of overthrowing this corrupt "kingdom."

Come on...fess up...is Vort right or am I? I see you smirking with this overthrow Saudi Arabia thing...Vort thinks you're serious? One of us wants a Hero Cookie...who gets the sweets?

[Guest]

I can't believe so many of you are against the idea of overthrowing this corrupt "kingdom."

Really? You were serious?

[annewandering]

sarcasm is so hard to carry off on the net. you just cant get that nice little smirk of derision across very easily.

[HoosierGuy]

Come on...fess up...is Vort right or am I? I see you smirking with this overthrow Saudi Arabia thing...Vort thinks you're serious? One of us wants a Hero Cookie...who gets the sweets?

No, I'm not joking. I'm very serous. Amazing, 9/11 takes place and the king of Saudi Arabia gets his hand held by the President in the state of Texas of all places. Absolutely pathetic.

[Vort]

No, I'm not joking. I'm very serous. Amazing, 9/11 takes place and the king of Saudi Arabia gets his hand held by the President in the state of Texas of all places. Absolutely pathetic.

Mmmmmm...PC...Hero Cookie...sooooo gooooood...

[prisonchaplain]

No, I'm not joking. I'm very serous. Amazing, 9/11 takes place and the king of Saudi Arabia gets his hand held by the President in the state of Texas of all places. Absolutely pathetic.

First, I am upset with Vort...even losers deserve a few crumbs...

Now...Saudi Arabia is our friend. Iraq is now our friend too. Pakistan is our begrudging friend. As mean and unfair as you may believe the U.S. is, many in the Middle East are more fearful of Iran than they are of America.

OK...exchange friend with convenient and powerful partners in the short term...then what I said will make sense.

[annewandering]

I would be more afraid of Iran too.

[Mamas_Girl]

Where we at war with Japan before we were outraged about Pearl Harbor?

Not really, we were (secretly?) aiding the UK in their defense by selling them warships, planes and other arms, but due to an America first movement following the first world war, America needed to be attacked to get the public behind another world war. The attack on Pearl Harbor gave Americans something to get behind and FDR a reason for declaring war.

[annewandering]

Not really, we were (secretly?) aiding the UK in their defense by selling them warships, planes and other arms, but due to an America first movement following the first world war, America needed to be attacked to get the public behind another world war. The attack on Pearl Harbor gave Americans something to get behind and FDR a reason for declaring war.

And there is considerable speculation that at least some of that was manipulated. I would hate to think it but there are some suspicious circumstances.

[Mamas_Girl]

And there is considerable speculation that at least some of that was manipulated. I would hate to think it but there are some suspicious circumstances.

I don't tend to believe in conspiracy theories, but I did find a BBC documentary "Sacrifice at Pearl Harbor" (1989) to be very interesting. They gave some compelling evidence that FDR was aware of the impending attack (and did nothing to stop it). Of course, as I said the US was more nationalistic and did not want to get involved in overseas wars following WWI, and an attack was the only way to get the country behind the war, and to send manpower to assist the UK, France, and other countries under attack by the Axis powers.

Edited December 14, 2011 by Mamas_Girl

[Vort]

I don't tend to believe in conspiracy theories, but I did find a BBC documentary "Sacrifice at Pearl Harbor" (1989) to be very interesting. They gave some compelling evidence that FDR was aware of the impending attack. Of course, as I said the US was more nationalistic and did not want to get involved in overseas wars following WWI, and an attack was the only way to get the country behind the war, and to send manpower to assist the UK, France, and other countries under attack by the Axis powers.

I am by no means a fan of FDR. His policies extended and deepened the Great Depression, and the governmental mechanisms he set in motion have forever changed, mostly for the worse, the functioning of our republic. Regardless of how popular he was, I do not hold him in high esteem.

But to accuse FDR of intentionally ignoring the well-being of the servicemen over whom he was the commander in chief, of knowingly allowing their slaughter as a political excuse for entering the war, is to accuse him of the most base treachery imaginable. It makes of FDR a monster far more despicable than any other president we have ever had, perhaps even on the same general level as a Hitler, a Stalin, or a Mao.

I may not have a high opinion of the guy, but I am not ready to classify his name along with those others. Without more evidence than someone's say-so and some coincidental occurrences, I'm not willing to believe the WWII Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory any more than I am inclined to accept the WTC demolition conspiracy theory.

[Saldrin]

That's not how I read it. Hoosier seemed obviously to be voicing his profound displeasure with Saudi Arabian society while simultaneously claiming that we accept such actions because we like their oil. Hoosier seems to think it's America's job to impose its values on those benighted Middle Eastern countries, by force if necessary. Unless it's a Republican in office, in which case it's war-mongering.

Doesn't the US get most of its oil from Canada and Mexico?

[Vort]

Quit confusing the issue with facts, Saldrin.

[bytebear]

It's not that we need their oil. It's that they have money from that oil to affect areas beyond their borders. There are plenty of African nations that do horrendous things to their people, but generally they have no ability to do anything beyond that, so we (the world) tend to ignore them.

[Mamas_Girl]

I am by no means a fan of FDR. His policies extended and deepened the Great Depression, and the governmental mechanisms he set in motion have forever changed, mostly for the worse, the functioning of our republic. Regardless of how popular he was, I do not hold him in high esteem.

But to accuse FDR of intentionally ignoring the well-being of the servicemen over whom he was the commander in chief, of knowingly allowing their slaughter as a political excuse for entering the war, is to accuse him of the most base treachery imaginable. It makes of FDR a monster far more despicable than any other president we have ever had, perhaps even on the same general level as a Hitler, a Stalin, or a Mao.

I may not have a high opinion of the guy, but I am not ready to classify his name along with those others. Without more evidence than someone's say-so and some coincidental occurrences, I'm not willing to believe the WWII Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory any more than I am inclined to accept the WTC demolition conspiracy theory.

Just for the record, I didn't say I believed it, I just said that the program gave some really compelling evidence. By compelling evidence I mean supposedly using official records that were declassified after 40 years. As a historian (and a LDS) I know how records can be quoted to prove an agenda. But with the free world at risk I also cannot discount that he may have sacrificed a few for the good of many, just like we did when we dropped the atom bomb on Japan. From a logical aspect I can understand the necessity to do such, but from a human standpoint it seemed like a monsterous thing to do, especially since we didn't know the long term effects of doing such. War is hell.

[JudoMinja]

Ok, Hoosier- I can see this is a very serious matter to you and nobody is taking you seriously. Here's my thoughts on your suggestion to bomb them:

First of all- if we do follow through with such an act, how many innocents are we going to be harming? And all this over someone who was legally put to death? I know the laws are terrible and wrong, but my understanding of the article was that this was a perfectly legal death sentance according to their laws. So, because you do not agree with their laws, you are willing to justify killing millions more potentially innocent people, just so you can express your dislike of that law by bombing them- declaring war and doing everything in your power to overthrow their government so that you can put up one you agree with?

Doesn't that sound even a mite controlling and well... crazy to you? Are you realizing what you are suggesting?

We can disagree with them all we want, but that doesn't give us the right to become a "world dictator" and tell everyone how to run their countries "or we'll bomb you"... If we were to use this logic to get rid of all the evil and corruption in the world, we'd end up with a nuclear winter.

Sometimes war and force are necessary, yes. But this situation is not one of them. We'd be overstepping our bounds and trying to control something we have no right to control. Your plan sounds an awful lot like Satan's plan for mortality. You are trying to MAKE everyone do the right thing, because you can't stand the horrible treatment some receive at the hands of those who exercise their free agency poorly. What happens when YOU do something wrong? Do you want someone to exterminate you?

I think that war should be avoided at all costs, and should only be utilized when there are simply no other options available. We should not throw around our power just because we are powerful and try to make everyone do what we tell them to. Neither should we take it upon ourselves to eliminate every evil we see- some things are just out of our hands.

Edited December 14, 2011 by JudoMinja

[prisonchaplain]

Just for the record, I didn't say I believed it, I just said that the program gave some really compelling evidence. By compelling evidence I mean supposedly using official records that were declassified after 40 years. As a historian (and a LDS) I know how records can be quoted to prove an agenda. But with the free world at risk I also cannot discount that he may have sacrificed a few for the good of many, just like we did when we dropped the atom bomb on Japan. From a logical aspect I can understand the necessity to do such, but from a human standpoint it seemed like a monsterous thing to do, especially since we didn't know the long term effects of doing such. War is hell.

I could be reading between the lines, but you seem to be saying, "I'm not saying I believe it...but it sure looks believable." It is so easy to see a documentary, or an expose, and become caught up in it and outraged. I tend to not believe conspiracy theories...been burned too many times--even in church. Anyone else remember backmasking?

Here's a link to a site dedicated to debunking the myths of FDR's advance knowledge of the impending Pearl Harbor attack:

The Myths of Pearl Harbor.

BTW...I'm rather biased against this particular conspiracy, since I first heard it as a teenager, from Jehovah's Witnesses (they refuse all military service, and have a theology that says all governments are controlled by Satan--so of course FDR knew).

[Vort]

Anyone else remember backmasking?

Devil bunnies! I snort the nose, Lucifer! Banana, banana!