Corinthian Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 I don't recognize unjust governments, TK. The Sudanese Government is scum, and no better than organized criminals in my book. I didn't exactly shed a tear for the Duke of New York, either. Just because I support criminals getting what I deserve doesn't mean I agree with every law. I'm a conservative, not a sheep. Also, I think your comment qualifies as baiting. As a moderator, you should really show a better example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev7 Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 The Sudanese Government is scum, and no better than organized criminals in my book Yes they may not be the best government out there, but if they were that bad, don't you think that the superpower nations would try to intervene? Say for instance, The Iraq Wars, we went over there to generally (IMO) to try to 'correct' their government, so to say... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Well, given that it was Sudan, I'm not surprised it happened there. However, I also think that we shouldn't be sending ANY aid to most of these hopelessly corrupt regimes UNLESS we're actually going to oversea distribution of said aid. Otherwise, it's likely to be used to fatten the wallets of the dictators/warlords and their cronies. We may be stuck w/corruption in our own system, but that's no reason to subsidize or underwrite 3rd world tyrants. @Rev7--he was referring to post #19. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted December 1, 2007 Author Share Posted December 1, 2007 I don't recognize unjust governments, TK. Naw, we'll just shoot them all and ask questions later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Unjust governements need to be put down. for example Hugo Chavez of Venezuela... he's a tyrant who wants power and is trying to brainwash kids in venezualan schools into thinking communism is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tk102 Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Also, I think your comment qualifies as baiting. As a moderator, you should really show a better example.I sought clarification in light of some of your recent posts. You have proven yourself consistent for what it's worth. No flames intended or pursued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Galt Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Unjust governements need to be put down. for example Hugo Chavez of Venezuela... he's a tyrant who wants power and is trying to brainwash kids in venezualan schools into thinking communism is good. I agree, but it's not our business to put them down; it is the business of the people they are oppressing. By the same token, we should not be propping up unjust or dictatorial regimes(Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, et. al.). Outside overthrow of such governments rarely work without causing blowback, as shown by the US reinstatement of the Shah in Iran, which precipitated unintended diplomatic consequences(the hostage crisis in '79, and subsequent hostilities with Iran) True change should come from the governed(i.e. revolutions, or electoral democracy, which is basically a series of scheduled nonviolent revolutions), as it is, as Voltaire said, difficult to free fools from the chains they revere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Unjust governments tend to put themselves down. If we stop sending them aid or buying stuff from them, they'll crumble. Their own people will eventually establish something they feel comfortable with. At which point the world can take a peek, make their own judgments, and then choose if it's worth supporting. We REALLY need to be more picky with who we help. We shouldn't help everyone "just 'cause". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev7 Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 We REALLY need to be more picky with who we help. We shouldn't help everyone "just 'cause". Me personally, I wouldn't say picky, but rather more wise with who we help. Other than that I agree 100% with what you said. I think that America is way too open in a lot of areas... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 So, because of a government, the innocent people should suffer? Technically, wouldn't that make us no better than them for doing this? People are stupid, doesn't mean everyone should be penalized for it. I mean, if we think about it like that then millions of people should just be beaten, killed, and slaughtered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev7 Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Who ever said that we have to help in the first place? The U.S. government/military/president chooses who we support/help. All that I am saying is that we as a country should just make practical and wise choices. I am not saying that in some ways we are not already doing that, but we, as a country should start to prepare for the future. Prices for nearly everything in the U.S. are going up, and with that happening it sets off a chain reaction. With that eventually people can't afford to go to work because of gas prices and with food prices continuing to go ( partially because we are helping other nations and exporting it, then causes the price to raise) up we won't be able to eat. With our military cut short, how will we defend ourselves? I mean there are National Guardsmen in Iraq. National Guardsmen(women) are supposed to be in the United States. That is what I am trying to get across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 All that I am saying is that we as a country should just make practical and wise choices. What is a wise choice? Is it what benefits the US the most? Is it what saves the most lives? Who ever said that we have to help in the first place? No one said you have to, but I would guess most people see saving other peoples lives as a good thing. Prices for nearly everything in the U.S. are going up, and with that happening it sets off a chain reaction. They always have thanks to inflation, as far as I know the US isn't facing a depression. With that eventually people can't afford to go to work because of gas prices Even if that happens don't you think someone will find an alternative for gas? Necessity is the first cousin of invention, so I wouldn't be so worried. Even if nothing is invented, I seem to remember things like: bikes, trains etc, not needing gas. and with food prices continuing to go ( partially because we are helping other nations and exporting it, then causes the price to raise) up we won't be able to eat You are also sometimes burning food to keep prices high, again, unless the US is facing a depression, I wouldn't worry. With our military cut short, how will we defend ourselves? I mean there are National Guardsmen in Iraq. National Guardsmen(women) are supposed to be in the United States. You still have quite a sizeable force in the US, besides, who would attack the country with the largest and most sophisticated nuclear arsenal? If we stop sending them aid or buying stuff from them, they'll crumble. I agree in part, I think aid should be sent, just not distributed by the (local) government Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 With our military cut short, how will we defend ourselves? I mean there are National Guardsmen in Iraq. National Guardsmen(women) are supposed to be in the United States. You still have quite a sizeable force in the US, besides, who would attack the country with the largest and most sophisticated nuclear arsenal? I doubt anyone would seriously try to invade the US in its current form. With over 200 million firearms and several (tens of?) million people with military and paramilitary experience, it would a fool's errand. If you thought Afghanistan was tough..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Prices for nearly everything in the U.S. are going up, and with that happening it sets off a chain reaction. More than just the U.S. is affected by it's monetary woes. With that eventually people can't afford to go to work because of gas prices And that will only get worse if we cut ourselves off and isolate. food prices continuing to go ( partially because we are helping other nations and exporting it, then causes the price to raise) Considering the large amount of food going over there isn't strictly government (and what is is very, very small). A lot is private donations. Some from private food banks. Not to mention, that is mostly corporations becoming greedy, like the gas prices. It is also affected by the previously mentioned gas prices. With our military cut short, how will we defend ourselves? I mean there are National Guardsmen in Iraq. National Guardsmen(women) are supposed to be in the United States. That is what I am trying to get across. That has nothing to do with this, that is poor planning on the part of a GOP controlled regime. You're mixing issues, most likely due to some poor connection between Islam=terrorism. Anyway, anyone thinking naming a teddy bear Muhammed is some religious jab is a fool. It's probably that the kids are muslim, a popular muslim name is Muhammed and it's variations. They chose it just like in the western world one would name a bear "John" or "David". This woman, I highly doubt, was trying to stage some religious protest denouncing Islam. The issue here is aggression influencing politics. People are pissed in these nations, have no idea where to point the finger for their misfortunes, and they take it out on easy targets. Simple psychology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Muhammad is a comman name among the Indian culture! Islamic, you mean. On some more thought, I've come here: Muhammad, despite being a common name, isn't just an average name, like Joe or Bob. It has religious connotations and is an honourable name. Gibbons, is Christian, white and British. She's teaching Sudanese kids (who are black and Muslim). She names a teddy bear "Muhammad", which is the name of the holiest person in Islam, and the most important one. What now? The people think she's come to convert them and piss on Islam. So they take out all their counter-anti-Islam rage on her. It's saddening. This teacher broke Sudanese law by insulting Islam. She was tried and convicted. I'm surprised you're asking anything about free speech in this case. That's what I'm saying. This is Sudan, a completely different place with a completely different set of rules. You can't even say that the teacher is guilty or not, because this isn't happening in your average democratic nation. It may look barbaric from our perspective, but she is wrong, sinful and evil from their perspective. You can't say that our view is better than theirs. That's just the world with its dozens of nations, all of them wierd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 That's just the world with its dozens of nations, all of them wierd. QFT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salzella Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Who ever said she was going to 'die'? Her punishment was either: 40 lashes, prison or a fine, then deportation, none of which, you will notice, are lethal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoiuyWired Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Who ever said she was going to 'die'? Her punishment was either: 40 lashes, prison or a fine, then deportation, none of which, you will notice, are lethal... QFE. There is no mention of anything close to execution. And Death Threats are done by the extremists, not the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted December 1, 2007 Author Share Posted December 1, 2007 Who ever said she was going to 'die'? Her punishment was either: 40 lashes, prison or a fine, then deportation, none of which, you will notice, are lethal... There were riots in the streets following the announcement of the sentence, and they were calling for her death. She may well be in danger in the transfer from prison to the point where she leaves the country, and quite possibly after if someone decides to hunt her down wherever she ends up after that for offending the religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 And with many calls for harsher punishment, I wouldn't be surprised to see the government say... "oh, we're such a herald of democracy, we need to give our people what they want." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev7 Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 That has nothing to do with this, that is poor planning on the part of a GOP controlled regime. You're mixing issues, most likely due to some poor connection between Islam=terrorism. No, no, no. I was simply giving an example on what I said about the Natl. Guard. I WAS NOT trying to 'mix issues'. I was also only listing off, what I think could happen. Thats all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salzella Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 There were riots in the streets following the announcement of the sentence, and they were calling for her death. She may well be in danger in the transfer from prison to the point where she leaves the country, and quite possibly after if someone decides to hunt her down wherever she ends up after that for offending the religion. Perhaps, but really, you could say the same for any criminal, and since she's being deported back to the UK, I think the danger of any sort of outside attack is minimal to be honest. Most people outside of these prosecuting her think it's a farce anyway. And my point was that there is no chance she will directly be put to death for her crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Perhaps, but really, you could say the same for any criminal, and since she's being deported back to the UK, I think the danger of any sort of outside attack is minimal to be honest. Most people outside of these prosecuting her think it's a farce anyway. And my point was that there is no chance she will directly be put to death for her crimes. MOST criminals have nothing to fear, since MOST criminals are petty criminals. Did some drugs, got caught, robbed a store, got caught. Nobody's going to kill you for that. Heck, even most murderers and rapists don't have to worry about maniacs attacking them on their way to prison. because SANE people believe that death is not the end-all answer to crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 I'm surprised you're asking anything about free speech in this case. Didn't address this in my last post. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Of course, the Sudanese don't recognize any of that. This case proves how corrupt and deranged the Sudanese government is. Not that you really need any proof on how evil they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamqd Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 As of about 10 minutes ago she has been pardoned, and will be released later today, she must immediately leave Sudan though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.