Patterico's Pontifications

11/4/2006

Saudi Rape Victim Sentenced to 90 Lashes with a Whip

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 2:13 pm



Rape victims are sometimes reluctant to come forward due to fear that their personal lives will become the subject of defense investigation and cross-examination.

This is a valid concern . . . but it could be worse. They could be in Saudi Arabia, where they might (literally) get whipped:

A Saudi court has sentenced a gang rape victim to 90 lashes of the whip because she was alone in a car with a man to whom she was not married.

The sentence was passed at the end of a trial in which the al- Qateef high criminal court convicted four Saudis convicted of the rape, sentencing them to prison terms and a total of 2,230 lashes.

The four, all married, were sentenced respectively to five years and 1,000 lashes, four years and 800 lashes, four years and 350 lashes, and one year and 80 lashes.

Via Hot Air.

So one guy participates in a gang rape and gets 80 lashes — but the victim gets 90.

I have no snarky remark to end this post with.

42 Responses to “Saudi Rape Victim Sentenced to 90 Lashes with a Whip”

  1. Of course the Saudis have a disgusting, authoritarian, government with no checks and balances and a ruthless police apparatus. That’s why the Bush’s love them so much. That and their oil.

    Paul (a0f0da)

  2. Sounds like the Saudis have put the Democrat Party agenda into practice. Next, they’ll have Bill Clinton give them some pointers on the proper way to treat women in the workplace.

    And they can get John Kerry to demonstrate how to size up marriage prospects.

    Then, there’s always Ted Kennedy. He can really show the Saudis how to take a girl for a ride.

    mokus (539ee5)

  3. mokus: Thanks for bitch-slapping Paul; he really asked for it.

    Old Coot (caf903)

  4. hello! this is our nominal ally, just displaying its muslim values. too bad so much of our oil comes from there. sure don’t want to insult the people who could torpedo our economy.
    i’m long in the united states oil fund (trading symbol “uso”). each share represents a barrel of oil on the futures market. you can hedge the future cost of your driving by buying some. better now than after we attack iran.

    assistant devil's advocate (ac538a)

  5. maybe she forgot to say “no”

    senorlechero (360f45)

  6. I watched a video today of Eugene Armstrong who was beheaded by 5 Muslim men shouting God’s name. He screamed; even after his throat was cut you could tell he was still trying to scream.

    I won’t link to it. If you’re as foolish as I am and you want to see how evil / Satanic our enemy is, you can find it yourself.

    What can I say that hasn’t been said? George W. Bush once said in a speech that, “Evil is real and must be opposed.”

    A simple statement and true.

    I feel sorry for this girl. I hope God will hold her in His hands if not in this life then in the next.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  7. Patterico, how do you deal with guys like Paul – complete monomaniacs whose waking hours revolve around their hatred for Bush. They turn any topic, any topic under the sun, to an anti-Bush snark. It truly is Bush derangement syndrome.

    The topic is Saudi or perhaps Wahhabi cruelty and injustice.

    Why does Congress not put some pressure on the Saudis? Did Congress pass some legislation dealing with this while I was sleeping? Paul, if the Democrats take back congress next week, can I please have some snark directed at the Democrat leadership if (when) they do absolutely nothing, zip, zero, de nada, nichts about the Saudi ‘justice’ system?

    What did you have to say back in February when Al Gore visited Saudi Arabia and gave a speech in which he gave not one word of criticism. Of the Saudis. He gave the Saudis plenty of criticism of America. Did Al Gore ‘love’ the Saudis? What exactly did Clinton do about the Saudi “government with no checks and balances and a ruthless police apparatus”. Oh that’s right, nothing. Only an idiot would suggest that means that Clinton loved them.

    The plain fact is that Saudi Arabia is a sovereign nation to which the USA must give substantial deference because they are sovereign and because of their oil. All of the USA needs to give and does give that deference – everyone who uses oil or gasoline.

    Paul, therefore you ‘love’ the Saudis too, unless you don’t drive, take a taxi, ride a bus, heat your home, use any product with plastic, wear or use synthetics, use grid electricity, use soap. Indeed, or use any manufactured product whatever.

    Or eat. Farmers use gasoline and diesel fuel. Where did you think it came from? How did you think the turnip truck got from the farm to your grocery store? Perhaps someone fell off the turnip truck. Perhaps it was Bush. Perhaps not.

    The plural of Bush is Bushes.

    BlacquesJacquesShellacques (83acf5)

  8. senorlechero, por que eres tan grosero?

    Paul (a0f0da)

  9. Paul — and especially senerolechero — is an argument for waterboarding for fun.

    Islamic terrorists are an argument for the AH-64 Apache.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  10. Although Paul redeemed himself a bit after I translated his Spanish to English.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  11. “Why does congress not put some pressure on these Saudis?” Because congress is a corrupt bed of theives run by the party that is in bed with the Saudis.

    Christoph, to quote Bush in order to show some outrage over torture and beheadings by the Saudis is obscene in itself. Bush senior and junior are close friends and allies of these thugs. You can try and deny it but the record is there. Remember Bush senior was hanging with Osama’s brother on 9/11. Bandar Bush is buddy, buddy with with the pres.

    Some other terrible thugs the Bush regime cozies up to are the rulers of Equatorial New Guinea and Kazakhstan. Check out their human rights record. Ten points if you guess what all three of these countries have in common.

    Paul (a0f0da)

  12. Right, Bushes not Bush’s. I know spelling is not my strong suit.

    OK, you can say it, “Thinking is not your strong suit either.”

    Paul (a0f0da)

  13. Paul, to hell with you!

    I mean that.

    You’re despicible.

    Bush is a person; just a guy. Write or wrong — he’s probably both, just like all of us.

    The words he said, which because of your visceral hatred you can’t analyze coolly, are:

    “Evil is real and must be opposed.”

    That’s all he said.

    As proof, rape occurs. As more proof, the victim of rape is being whipped. There’s your f’n proof, moron.

    Whether you choose to oppose that or go advocate for a full term baby to be killed somewhere because her mother is “depressed” is your business.

    Anyway, yes, I quoted very accurate words from President Bush that sumarize the reality that there is good and evil in the world.

    If this isn’t so, Patterico should quit his day job because he has no purpose. And we should all vote for leftist scum like you.

    Paul, I really really hope you say this shit to the wrong person in person one day.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  14. I’m sorry Christoph. My visceral hatred blinded me to your cool, rational argument. I now see the error of my ways. Maybe you should stop watching those snuff films, it does not seem to be helping you any.

    Paul (a0f0da)

  15. Christoph is a perfect example, based on his comments 9 and 13, of why people should not be given the authority to torture other people. It warps the human soul. It becomes about inflicting pain, suffering, and humiliation on another person you hate for whatever reason and ceases to be used for strictly intelligence purposes. When your first impulse is to reach for torture when presented by something that upsets you then the results are inevitable. All countries who have sanctioned torture have found this to be true and the U.S.A. will be no different. How many people with Christoph’s mentality are in the government now? Too many I think.

    Paul (a0f0da)

  16. “Of course the Saudis have a disgusting, authoritarian, government with no checks and balances and a ruthless police apparatus. That’s why the Bush’s love them so much. That and their oil.”

    — Paul

    This is your first comment on a story about a woman who is being whipped for being raped.

    I hate you because you have shown yourself worthy of hate.

    There is a difference between hating that which is evil and that which is good.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  17. You are pretty rough on Bush, Paul. Tell me, are you that critical of Democrats who excuse terrorists? I’d like to see a sample.

    Doc Rampage (4a07eb)

  18. Christoph……my comment was a joking reference to a previous post on rape…….guess it was too subtle for you

    senorlechero (360f45)

  19. Dems are all in favor of multi-culturalism, diversity, diplomacy/tolerance/understanding at all costs …

    but never from Republicans.

    I’m glad to know that Paul is posting from a computer made of recycled plantation Douglas fir, but for the rest of us, maintaining diplomatic relations with Saudia Arabia based primarily on oil isn’t any worse than maintaining an ally relationship with France based on …. on …

    someone remind me…why DO we need France?

    Darleen (03346c)

  20. Thanks for clarifying, senorlechero. I apologize and stand corrected.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  21. Paul,

    I’m sure all commenters on this board will defer to your experience in recognizing “warp[ed] … human soul[s].” Also “…about inflicting pain, suffering, and humiliation on another person you hate for whatever reason …” You are, after all, a “progressive” and progressives’ serial hate for all things *not* progressive is justifiably legendary.

    What puzzles me, however, is your complete lack of empathy for the young woman in question. Your first instinct – indeed, the very first words out of your keyboard are an attack on President Bush. Interesting that you have shown youself incapable of caring for another human being. That’s not a supposition, that’s backed up by your words in the very *first* post on this thread.

    You say “of course” when refering to the Saudi regime – whatever could you mean by that? Could the end of that sentiment be “because the Saudis follow the murderous ideology of radical Islam”? If so, shame on you Paul, that’s not a very progressive way to think – you’d better be careful with that heresy, or your bumper sticker privileges might be revoked.

    And regarding your self-righteous stand vis-a-vis Christoph’s comments, well – he’s expressing a less virulent sentiment to you that you are to him; your advocation of your viewpoint jeopardizes his and all Americans’ existence. (ie – treating the President as a greater threat to the American people than the West’s Islamic Fascist enemies).

    You say that “Christoph is a perfect example, based on his comments 9 and 13, of why people should not be given the authority to torture other people.”

    Goodness.

    Guess what *you’re* a perfect example of?

    Cordially,

    A.

    Abraxas (52f32e)

  22. Paul’s all-too-predictictable instant recasting of this story as an excuse to bash the Bush Administration is obscuring the interesting matter that Patterico brought to our attention. There is good and bad in the Saudi’s actions:

    The bad is obviously their insistence on handing out punishment to a woman who was raped. Even if she had run afoul of one of their silly laws restricting the freedom of women, the court should have recognized the degree of her suffering and spared her any further penalty.

    The good is that at least the Saudi justice system acknowledged the guilt and handed out a fairly strict sentence to the rapists in this matter. As we recently heard from Australia, many of our. . . what is the phrase. . . ah yes, “moderate” Muslim friends have some weird ideas about a rape victim deserving her fate.

    JVW (4cf03b)

  23. After 9/11 there was some talk about “drying out the swamp”. I have not heard that phrase for a few years. There is no question that Saudi Arabia is part of the swamp in my mind. We may need their oil (which I question) but we do not need them. For a fact, the people of that country do not need the royal family or the Wahabis. Saudi Arabia is just as overdue for a regime change as Iraq was.

    nk (4d4a9d)

  24. “I have no snarky remark to end this post with.”

    How about: Maybe next time she’ll think twice before being born without a penis!

    Jim Treacher (c4006e)

  25. Abraxis, what a total hypocrit you are. You did not comment to express a single thought of sympathy for the woman in question in Pat’s post, instead choosing to comment to attack me. I said the Saudi’s have a disgusting, authoritarian govt. with a ruthless police force in response to Pat’s post which is exactly how I feel. Who knows how you feel as all you did was put thoughts in my head and words in my mouth so you could then feel self-righteous in denouncing me. You say I have no empathy for this girl. Bullshit. It is pitiful you have to put words in my mouth in order to attack me as you did with your little “that is not very progressive of you” snark. But you obviously have a hard time thinking for yourself and not in tired stereotypes as you took my well founded admonition against torture, all the points of which everyone ignored, and used it to claim I was treating the president as a greater threat than radical islam.

    You know, it realy gets tiring when you try and debate something and people purposefully distort your point of view and even your own words. If you are so desperate to feel superior by winning an argument just proclaim yourself the victor and don’t even bother writing in.

    To explain my point of view to anyone who cares or has enough self-respect to honestly accept my words for what they are and not what you would wish them to be so you can feel comfortable in your preconceived notions of where I am coming from, I will explain why my first response to Pat’s post dealt with Bush. When I hear about atrocities happening around the world my first feeling is sympathy. Then I think, what can I as an american do about it. I read and find out about the problem. If I find out that my own govt. is doing nothing or worse, helping to continue the atrocity through action or inaction I feel angry, something you would think was the sole provenance of liberals if you were to only read this blog. I can do nothing to stop the atrocities in Saudi Arabia by expressing sympathy for the girl or anger at the Saudi theocracy, the only thing I can do is express my feelings about what my govt. is doing and vote, and that is why I commented as I did.

    Paul (e662f5)

  26. “Abraxis, what a total hypocrit you are. You did not comment to express a single thought of sympathy for the woman in question in Pat’s post, instead choosing to comment to attack me…”

    Comment by Paul — 11/5/2006 @ 1:31 pm

    You’re a hypocrit, Paul.

    This is, verbatim, the first post on this thread:

    “Of course the Saudis have a disgusting, authoritarian, government with no checks and balances and a ruthless police apparatus. That’s why the Bush’s love them so much. That and their oil.”

    Comment by Paul — 11/4/2006 @ 2:24 pm

    Where is your “sympathy” for the woman who was raped then sentenced to whipping? This discredits you completely as should all the dishonest garbage you write.

    You’re a parody of the left, only more so.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  27. Can we vote Paul off the island?

    Christoph (9824e6)

  28. Cristoph, what a petty little fool you are. Torture me and vote me off the island. Hate me all you want if it makes you feel good. Every time you open your mouth you show your true colors and reinforce what I said in comment 15.

    Your even worse than Abraxas since while you expressed sympathy for the girl you could not even bring yourself to critize the Saudi regime or your governments complicity of silence. Wonder why?

    Paul (e662f5)

  29. Paul, you’re such a liar… You expressed no sympathy for the girl, but this is fine. Abraxas expressed no sympathy for a girl, so he’s a hypocrit. I expressed sympathy for the girl, so I’m worse than Abraxas.

    And out of all that, you conclude I don’t criticize Saudi Arabia for whipping the girl.

    You’re mentally sick.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  30. Yeh, yeh, yeh. Now you’ve just stopped making any sense. Since when is the litmus test weather or not I expressed sympathy for the girl in my first comment. Is it some kind of thought crime or something not to have. What I did do is critize the Saudi regime, something you failed to do. Who cares, you are free to comment as you see fit. Apparently I am not.

    It’s about the hypocrisy of being attacked by Abraxas for something when he did the exact same thing. It’s about the hypocrisy of being attacked by you when you could not even critize the Saudis or your govt.. I laid it all out before but you refuse to read and just choose to believe your comfortable little delusions.

    You hate me, I am mentally sick, a liar, a hypocrit, I’m evil, I advocate for full term babys to be killed, I’m despicable, I’m leftist scum, I should be waterboarded, beat up, and kicked off the island. What else you got in that cool, mature, conservative little mind of yours?

    Paul (e662f5)

  31. Paul,

    You are tiresome and unthoughtful.

    Just for fun, let’s take your first paragraph of pablum, shall we?

    “Abraxis, what a total hypocrit you are.”

    Well, to paraphrase a well-known movie: You progressives keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Also, it isn’t spelled the way you think it’s spelled, either.

    “You did not comment to express a single thought of sympathy for the woman in question in Pat’s post, instead choosing to comment to attack me.”

    Yes, because our host and previous commenters pretty much expressed the conservative viewpoint of the matter (per Christoph (among others): “I feel sorry for this girl. I hope God will hold her in His hands if not in this life then in the next”); absolute horror at the perpetration of this crime against humanity. And don’t kid yourself – that’s precisely what this is; state-sponsored butchery. I didn’t comment on that because if I wanted to post an endless stream of “Right on! Me too!”, then I’d join Democratic Underground.

    On second thought, no, I wouldn’t; but the sentiment remains.

    You, however, chose to make a political point out of this woman’s suffering. Now you’re having a tantrum that someone called you on it. Hey, if you don’t like what you see when someone holds a mirror up to you, then change your appearance. (That’s a metaphor, by the way in case you’re wondering).

    “I said the Saudi’s have a disgusting, authoritarian govt. with a ruthless police force in response to Pat’s post which is exactly how I feel.”

    You said “That’s why the Bush’s love them so much. That and their oil.” *That* is “exactly how [you] feel”. The first phrase was a merely a rhetorical modifier – stop expecting others to not read your remarks in their entirety.

    “Who knows how you feel…”

    If you’re interested, ask.

    “…as all you did was put thoughts in my head…”

    Well, as you don’t seem to have any yourself, I figured I’d lend a hand.

    Seriously, I didn’t do anything other than read your own words. Be proud! They perfectly encompass your viewpoints.

    That’s another problem with you progressives; you want to be able to engage in logorrheaic idiocy, and when someone calls you on it, pretend that what you meant isn’t what you meant. See: Kerry, John.

    “…and words in my mouth…”

    I don’t believe I misquoted you, I’m pretty careful about things like that.

    “…so you could then feel self-righteous in denouncing me.”

    Two more progressive failings for the price of one – while you’re worried about “feelings” the rest of us are dealing with thoughts and reason. You might try it sometime.

    Also, progressives have an annoying habit of projecting. See: Self-righteousness, your own.

    “You say I have no empathy for this girl.”

    That’s right – I do say so. You’ve had many opportunities to prove me wrong in every post you’ve made on this topic. You’ve failed to do so, every single time – even in your yappy little response to me.

    “Bullshit.”

    I have no riposte to such a sterling example of pithy forensic eloquence.

    “It is pitiful you have to put words in my mouth in order to attack me…”

    Well, Paul, I don’t. You’re own words are reason enough to “attack” you; although I prefer the word “oppose” or “argue against”. Were I to attack you, you wouldn’t be able to type about it afterwards. That’s not a threat, and I’m not chest-thumping or boasting, that’s just a correction to you about terms.

    Again, I didn’t misquote you, quote you out of context, or write that you said something you didn’t. You can’t even begin to refute what I’ve said without lying about it. What does that tell you about both a) your argument, and b) your capability for rational discourse?

    “as you did with your little “that is not very progressive of you” snark.”

    Well, was it? Progressive of you, I mean?

    “But you obviously have a hard time thinking for yourself”

    Yes.

    Obviously.

    And the proof of that? Why, I don’t have the same opinion as you do!

    Obviously.

    (The preceding was what we in the thinking, reasoning world call “sarcasm”. See: Example of, Extreme; Coulter, Ann.)

    “and not in tired stereotypes as you took my well founded admonition against torture,”

    Well founded? Attacking a President who’s actually trying to make these sorts of abominations history is a poor foundation. The progressives’ allergy to condemning truly torturous regimes is matched only by their insistence on calling any handling of fascists by Western forces a war crime.

    That’s one of the reasons why we don’t take you seriously, Paul. The progressives have so defined down the meaning of the word torture that it could mean anything to them from bodily mutilation to an ice-cream headache. Once the opposition party decides to act like adults, the governing party will decide to take their viewpoints seriously. Just a hint.

    You’re welcome.

    “all the points of which everyone ignored,”

    Ah, yes. Only *you* “get it”.

    The rest of us are worried about inconsequential things.

    Like rape victims who get brutalized by the State.

    “and used it to claim I was treating the president as a greater threat than radical islam.”

    Um, again, just going off of what you yourself wrote.

    If you think Fascist Islam is a greater threat to the world than President Bush, you would be the first progressive I’ve heard say so.

    Stop pretending, Paul.

    The rest of your spit up is a pathetic after-the-fact attempt to spin your poisonous comments into something resembling a real human conscience.

    No sale.

    And Paul? There *is* something you can do about Saudi atrocities, if you minded to. You can boycott all of their imports into your country (By the way, where were you when the rest of us made this work against the Apartheid South African government?) I realize riding a bike isn’t exactly “cool”, but hey, neither is being a progressive, so that shouldn’t bother you. And it certainly beats the cost-free alternative to bashing a man who’s done more to end tyranny in the Middle East than the past 3 Democrat administrations combined.

    Abraxas (52f32e)

  32. Sorry Abraxas, you tried again, you failed again. My words speak for themselves. If you were so sure that what I said speaks for itself then why do you constantly have to rephrase my words and cut them all up in order to attack them? It wasn’t as if my comment was that long or complicated. It was very simple and to the point. Reprint it all you want and it will still say the same thing.

    You say you did not wan’t to get on the “Right on. Me too.” bandwagon. Well goody for you. In that case it was stupid of you for attacking me for also not getting on the bandwagon. Why should I comment by expressing empathy for the girl when it was done by Pat in his post. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. It is you who have been totally unwilling to adress the substance of my remarks, instead getting into these phony arguments about me not having empathy for the girl.

    I said what I said. I did not run away from any of it as it is all true. No spin buddy. When you put words in my mouth I call you on it. When you try and inject your thoughts into my comments I call you on it as I did in comment 25. You think you can play your little Hannity/O’Reilly game of making accusations in order to have the other guy correct them and then say, “Why are you running from your comments.” It aint gonna work this time. It’s just me and you and whoever else chooses to read, so if your fooling anyone it could only be yourself.

    Oh, by the way, your phony threats are the most telling thing about your comment. Just like all the armchair warriors you can bark all you like cause you know you will never have to back it up, safe behind your computer monitor. But mainly it is obvious that when push comes to shove around here and your cherished beliefs are threatened you and Christoph resort to threats. Very telling indeed.

    Paul (e662f5)

  33. Paul,

    I will repeat; you are tiresome. Getting the last word in on this topic won’t make you right, it’ll just demonstrate your utter lack of thought and respect for civilization yet again.

    You want to talk about failure?

    I.

    When I called you on your progressive talking points, you said I put words in your mouth.

    I challenged you to point out where.

    You can’t. All you can do is repeat the accusation with no objective evidence. None.

    Failure = Yours.

    II.

    I didn’t “…attack” [tsk tsk – that word again!] you “…for also not getting on the bandwagon.”

    I took issue with your making the suffering of another human being a political talking point.

    Surely you must understand the difference? Oh wait, you’re a progressive, so no, you don’t. Regardless, your straw man isn’t impressive.

    That was a particularly inept attempt to obfuscate you original boneheadedness.

    Failure = Yours.

    III.

    So, when I quote your comments accurately (you: “I said what I said. I did not run away from any of it as it is all true.”) , I’m not reading them accurately (you: “When you put words in my mouth I call you on it.”)?

    Sweet Heavens. Will someone at least remotely in touch with reality (leaves you out, Paul, sorry) please explain *that* to me?

    That’s as extraordinary a case of cognitive dissonance as I’ve ever had the misfortune to be even peripherally involved in. You might want to check and see if they make a pill for that or something.

    Mental Illness = Yours.

    Also the Failure.

    IV.

    I don’t make threats. Phony or otherwise. What I did was explicitly point out that my language was *not* to be taken as a threat.

    Reading comprehension?

    Failure = Yours.

    My, my.

    You lose on all issues “buddy”.

    You want to get embarrassed again, you come and find me.

    On second thought, if you want to get embarrassed again, simply post whatever it is that goes on in that progressive noodle of yours.

    Now go home and pleasure yourself to the thought of Ramsey Clark in Liza Minelli hot pants singing “Tomorrow Belongs to Me”.

    Abraxas (52f32e)

  34. Oh Abraxas, up to your same old tricks again.

    “Getting the last word won’t make you right.”
    You brought it up. You must be projecting your thoughts onto me.

    Abraxas 0/ Paul 1

    I lack respect for civilization? A bit grandiose even for you but it must be true if you think it, right?

    Where did you put words in my mouth? My, how quickly we forget. “Could the end of that sentiment be “”because the Saudis follow the murderous ideology of Islam””? If so, shame on you Paul, that’s not a very progressive way to think-you’d better be carefull with that heresy…..” Granted it was a lame attempt, but an attempt none the less to project words and thoughts I had not expressed onto me.

    Abraxas 0/ Paul 2

    “I didn’t attack you for not getting on the bandwagon. I took issue with you for making the suffering of another human being a political talking point.” No you didn’t. You said “What puzzles me however is your complete lack of empathy for the young woman in question.” Must be that problem with your memory again.

    Abraxas 0/Paul 3

    You based that judgement on the fact that I had gone after Bush in my first comment. “Your first instinct-indeed the very first words out of your keyboard are an attack on president Bush.” Despite your claim that I don’t know what hypocrisy means you present a textbook example here. I can just as easily turn your words on you and say, “Abraxas’s first instinct-indeed some of the very first words out of his keyboard are an attack on Paul.” They are both true and both equally pointless to anything but a desire to make someone look bad.

    Abraxas 0/Paul 4

    What else? Your cognitive dissonance slight. Standard blog fare with nothing to back it up.

    Abraxas 0/Paul 5

    Mental Illness? Since I’m still here debating with you you may have something there. We’ll call that one even.

    You don’t make threat’s, phoney or otherwise. “Were I to attack you, you wouldn’t be able to type about it afterwards.” OK. more of a passive agressive lashing out then a threat but it was phoney. We can call that one even, but since you brought it up, I guess Bush won’t be able to type for a while seeing as you said I attacked him. On second thought I get that point.

    Abraxas 0/Paul 6

    Six to zip. I guess I’m about as embarrassed as the Cardinals were after the world series.

    Your other childish remarks about my fantasies were, well, they were so lame I get a free point there.

    Abraxas 0/Paul 7

    Any time Abraxas. By the way, the Bushes do love the Saudis. We can talk about that some time too. It’s all in the public record.

    Paul (2b9986)

  35. This is a somewhat amazing conversation; somehow it’s degenerated into name calling and mudslinging, something that this blog’s comments aren’t usually known for.

    It may be that “the Bushes do love the Saudis”, and certainly Bob Woodward’s latest book gives the impression that former President George HW Bush, is very close to the former Saudi Ambassador. But, regardless of their personal inclinations, the fact is that every US administration for decades has had a warm relationship with the Saudis because there aren’t any other good alternatives.

    Quick question: is it better to have a warm relationship with a government which controls a huge reserve of oil and the Islamic holy cities, or is it better to not have a warm relationship with them? Which serves our interests in the middle east better?

    It does not seem to meto be fair to single Bush out for criticism because his administration comports with something that has been a fundamental presumption of our foreign policy for the entire time that I’ve been alive. If you think the policy is wrong, then every President in modern times, it seems to me, is equally guilty.

    That said … there is something nasty in fundamentalist Islam about the way women are treated. Similarly outrageous stories have popped up in Pakistan, and Iran, and Nigeria; it seems to me to be a widespread cultural problem. I’m not sure what we can do about it, if anything.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  36. I agree, aphrael, when you say every president in modern times is guilty, but it is not really true that they are all equally guilty. Both bush and Cheney are oil men who have had strong ties to the Saudis in the past. We could go on and on about past mistakes by previous administrations but since the one in power now is Bush, it seems more relevent to talk about that one.

    As the world’s technological ability continues to advance it seems incredibly illogical for any american administration to not be investing billions of dollars in alternative energy research. The payoff for the first country to get the patents on these alternatives is going to be in the trillions. There is no better way to defang the terrorists and Middle East dictators than to take away their oil revenue.

    Paul (2b9986)

  37. Paul,

    Like I said, you just keep embarrassing yourself.

    Let’s cut to the core issue: *your* first instinct was to use the suffering of another human as a talking point.

    *My* first instinct was to call you on it. The quote you attribute to me *was* “calling you on it.” Get it now? Doubtful, yet I keep hoping.

    It’s not enough that you *read* the posts, you liberal; you also have to *understand* them.

    I really don’t know why you feel you’re going to fool anyone by saying things that are objectively not so. It’s like you truly believe you’re John Kerry or something.

    By the by, you have again utterly failed to make your case about my “putting words in your mouth”. The example you cite is what we in the true reality-based community call a question. I in fact *asked* if that’s what you meant. Surely you noticed the punctuation mark at the end of the sentence – it’s something adults call a “question mark”. I did not, in fact, infer that that is what you actually typed.

    Jeez, you liberals really have trouble with logic.

    Let’s face it; you’re understandably sad and bitter that your contemptible comments didn’t pass unremarked. Well … not my problem.

    After all of this, I don’t believe you’ll listen to reason, or recognize facts, so I’ll stop trying. You’re welcome to keep the conversation going, but you’ll just be talking to yourself – and if you keep talking long enough, maybe you’ll convince yourself of whatever point you’re trying to make.

    Cordially,

    A.

    Abraxas (52f32e)

  38. You mean like this, Paul? When you get there, don’t merely gasp at the political brilliance of the master himself, George W. Bush, or worry about the embarrassing drubbing your party will take on Tuesday.

    Oh no. Use your keyboard to press “CTRL” + “F” at the same time and search for the term “billion”.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  39. The bottom line is that Republicans cuddle up to the Saudis for their oil and Democrats cuddle up to the Saudis for their oil.

    nk (2ab789)

  40. NK,

    Quite correct, if crudely stated.

    [I hang my head in shame for the pun.]

    Saudi Arabia is almost an afterthought it seems in U.S. policy, both D and R. It’s kind of stable (a subjective term in that neighborhood certainly), and its rulers at least give lip service to “unending friendship” etc. with the U.S.

    The subject at hand, though, is the utterly mysoginist policies of that State. It’s part and parcel of the institutionalized anti-semitism and bigotry rampant in that country. The reasons can be debated – I think it has mostly to do with a large minority of fascists taking advantage of a long-overdue-for-reform religion, but again, that’s just me.

    Both the media and the government of the U.S. need to more fully inform the public as to their practices. The media bears much of the blame – they don’t have to balance considerations of geo-policy as do D and R Administrations. The sooner stories like this get wider play, the sooner the Saudis will start staring down the barrel of world opinion. It would seem something like this would bring the left and right together.

    Unfortunately, the quickest way for SA to get in the bullseye of culture/regime change is for Iraq to stabilize and Iran to undergo regime change. SA is a distant, miserable third in that equation. Fourth if you count Afghanistan.

    The ultimate goal, of course (or perhaps not so “of course”), is some permanent solution to the Palestinian territories’ war on Israel that does not involve genocide for Jews.

    Perhaps once the aggravating factors are removed, that particular thorn may be pulled.

    Cordially,

    A.

    Abraxas (52f32e)

  41. A, you just repeated all the same balony again. In order to cut to the core of this issue you must first have some understanding of what that issue is and you do not. I think it has gotten to the point where you are being purposefully obtuse in order not to see the point. It is rediculous to say I used the suffering of the girl as a talking point. I no more used the girls suffering to make a point about Bush than Patterico did to make a point about Saudi cruelty or you did in your comment 40 above to make a point about anti-semitism and bigotry rampant in Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian crisis.

    It’s about your hypocrisy in criticizing me for the same behavior you engage in, that you just engaged in in comment 40. The point is that if you want to take Patterico’s post and go off about lack of media attention and anti-semitism that is fine. I chose to make a point about Bush. A point that obviously got to you and Christoph. That is the crux of the problem, not all this natter about not recognizing facts, as if only you were capable of such a feat. If you could figure that out it would go a long way to helping you deal with people you disagree with.

    Also Cordially,
    Paul

    Paul (eda7b9)

  42. Christoph, thanks for the link. I should have known you got your news from the official White House home page. That really puts into perspective where your coming from. You might want to broaden you horizons. Try;

    http://www.psyorg.com/news68303622.html
    or
    http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/

    Bush appointed a coal and oil lobbyist, J. Stephen Griles, as Deputy Secretary of the Interior. He says America is addicted to oil so why is he putting the pushers in charge of our energy policy?

    Bush put the retired chief of Exxon/Mobil, Lee Raymond, to head the study of how America can develop a cleaner energy policy. Now that is just pathological.

    Paul (eda7b9)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0862 secs.