Reading this article made my stomach turn. I thought we were in 2011? Lashing a female Iranian star for starring in a film about oppression, drug use and alienation in Iran? Absolutely unbelievable. Sad women in oppressed Countries still do not have any rights.
I am so glad to be an American. Thank God many of us are able to express our thoughts, our opinions and our beliefs. 90 lashes could kill a woman and the lesser is scars on her body for life, just for expressing herself in a movie. Those men need to think of women with respect and understand she was only trying to depict the truth. Killing and beatings only place them in the World eye for the dark ages. Stonings and beatings are unfair and unjustified. What is your opinion on this problem within Iran? Very sad for the people who live there. They do not have a right to express themselves.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/iran- … 27275.html
Hideous stuff AEvans, barbaric even. Women in so many parts of the world have no rights which is crazy in 2011. I too feel very lucky to live in a country that allows freedom of speech and where women have the same rights as men.
There are a lot of uprisings happening, maybe things will change. I certainly hope so.
I hope so too! It's a shame that women have to live like that. I wish I could rescue all of them, such cruelty. It is sad.
I heard it on the news this morning. Very upsetting.
It is unbelievable! She needs to be granted asylum in another Country and her entire family removed from that place.
Oh they'll all end up moving to Britain where they'll be given free handouts - accommodation, food, internet access, cars etc., to join the millions of other Muslims fleeing oppression.
One day soon there will be more immigrants in the UK than indigenous, then under our free and democratic society, muslims will be elected to run the country and Sharia law will become part of UK law.
I agree their laws are awful, but they really are fleeing to other countries and continuing to practise their old ways that they apparently ran away from in the first place.
You are joking aren't you?
It's a joke in very bad taste.
No, I'm not joking. Why would I joke about something so serious?
I am making the point that moving to another country to get away from Sharia law does not solve the problem.
If enough people move to the same country, the Laws change to become their laws that caused the oppression in the first place.
That is a fact.
Your profile seems to suggest that you are an immigrant in another country, Spain to be precise. Can it therefore be assumed that you have abandoned your Scottish roots entirely? Perhaps you refuse to purchase products from shops or bars which use English shop signs rather than signs written in Spanish?
As a resident of Spain, rather than a tourist, can we assume that you speak only Spanish in order to completely integrate into Spanish life?
It is said that there are 700,000 to 1 million British immigrants in Spain, equivalent to somewhere around 2% of their population, that doesn't include the hundreds of thousands that head to the country on vacation every year. Muslims make up about 3% of the population of England and Wales, and 0.84% of the population of Scotland.
Has it perhaps every occurred to you that you may be just as unwelcome in Spain as Muslims are in the UK? Before you say that the British bring money to Spain, there are plenty of British pensioners who are currently living off of Spanish food handouts after failing to perform the necessary financial due diligence before moving over.
This country had a much bigger problem with the hundreds of thousands of skilled Eastern European workers that turned up a few years ago and muscled their way into work, at the expense of British sole traders and self-employed workers. That was also legal migration, precisely the same as the migration involving British people moving to Spain.
Scotland is one of the whitest and purest countries in Europe, no immigrants want to move there, and that really isn't much of a surprise. They house a lot of them in dilapidated tower blocks in Glasgow and they end up jumping out in pure misery of being stuck in Scotland.
I don't think that the Scottish have anything to worry about when it comes to immigration whatsoever, it's the last place that most Asians want to live. If the EU dissolved and everybody had to move back to where they came from, then there would be millions of people moving to Scotland, and not many moving out!
I detect a strong anti-Scottish sentiment in this post!
Yes I live and work in Spain, what of it?
And no I have not turned my back on Scotland.
Yes I speak Spanish and integrate. What is your problem?
I was talking specifically about Muslim asylum seekers reaching Britain, bypassing loads of 'safe' countries in between, because they don't offer such generous hand-outs, and then trying to change Britain to be the same as the country they left.
Many cities in the UK don't put up municipal Christmas trees anymore for fear of offending Muslims.
Then again, this is because Britain is run by a bunch of politically correct w*nkers and not because of any objections put in my minority non-Christian groups.
Yes, I live in Manchester and every year around Christmas the local press will be full of letters protesting about the city council banning Christmas and not spending our money on Christmas trees and every year the council will respond with "what about all the trees in the city centre, the Christmas decorations" and wish everybody a merry Christmas.
It makes no difference, there are always those who will ignore all evidence and insist that the council have banned Christmas.
Muslim population of the UK 2.8%
Muslim population of Spain 2.3%
So you have all the same sorts of "problems" that we have in the UK?
Or is that 0.5% difference critical?
The benefits system in England, Izzy, has never been generous, except in the mind of Daily Mail and Sun readers. It has only ever been enough to buy food(the cheapest) and keep a roof over your head, but mostly not even that. Who would want to live like that? It amazes me that people still believe there is a whole sector who live this way by choice, and not because of necessity and social class. Yes, social class, as an English women, it may or may not be different for Scotts, social class is a hard barrier to overcome. God knows how Muslims who are so often, well, not only demonized but dehumanized feel.
My post was less anti-Scottish than yours was anti-Muslim, make of that as you wish.
You do seem to be spouting nothing other than BNP manifesto propaganda though, you seem unable to back up your claims with any hard statistics from reliable sources.
Let me do some homework for you:
- The proportion of economically inactive people from ethnic minorities seeking work is about the same as the proportion of economically inactive white British people seeking work, about 50%.
- The ethnic group with the highest proportion of people not willing to work are Bangladeshi and Pakistani. These communities have existed for three or four generations and were created by white business owners in the fifties who wanted cheap skilled labor. Not Iranians, not Afghans, not Iraqis.
- A higher proportion of black women in the UK have paid work than white women, a higher proportion of black women want to work.
- A higher proportion of Bangladeshi and Pakistani men work than Black African or Black Carribean men. How does this relate to the first point? Simple, in their culture the woman stays at home. If the man earns a certain amount of money in their job then the woman would NOT be entitled to unemployment benefits.
- More white British families have NOBODY working than white non-British and Indian families. White British people are lazier than other Europeans and Indians.
- The proportion of non-whites in employment in the United Kingdom has increased since 1997.
- The number of economically inactive non-whites who do not want to work has fallen since 1997.
- 12% of white British unemployed people do not want to work.
- The proportion of muslims in the UK is still lower than the proportion in the whole of the EU, 3.2% of the EU population is muslim.
- The first muslims in Europe were here in the 12th century.
- The largest muslim populations are in Kosovo, Serbia, Albania, and Montenegro. They are predominantly white indigenous people.
- There are more muslims in Moscow than there is the whole of the UK.
- Muslim fertility rates in Europe are falling faster than any other group.
- Greece, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Netherlands, and France, all have a larger muslim population by proportion than the UK, which rubbishes your assumption that immigrants skip the rest of the EU in order to come to the UK.
- There are 13 million British people living overseas.
- There are around 11 million non-white British people in the UK.
- That figure includes people who are not white, but were born here. It also includes 700,000 Irish people.
- There are more British people living overseas than there are non-white people in the whole of the UK, including those of other colours who are as British as you or me.
- 62% of British people support multi-culturism (that majority includes me)
- 32% see multi-culturism as a threat (that minority includes you).
- 6% were too stupid to know what multi-culturism means.
- There are less active mosques per active church in London than there are churches per active mosque in Istanbul.
I can provide sources for all of those statistics, they are all reliable sources too, they are not tabloid newspapers - put it that way.
AEvans, I agree with you mainly, and strongly against that Dark Ages attitude - it's shocking!
I say "mainly" because I see such beatings, on unfair unjust charges, as humiliating and cruel when imposed on anyone, male or female. We men have our sensitivities too. We have feelings, why wouldn't we?
People living under these oppressive religious regimes are in dire danger.
Our family went to visit our extended family in Iran in the late 90s, and the religious police (basij) were charged with often extorting women who didn't cover their hair, or wore "immodest dress" or doing even worse. My mom and cousin saw a young unmarried couple that was holding hands, and they were taken in by the police.
Absolutely backwards and disgusting.
OMG! Being arrested for holding hands? How uncivilized. Being covered as a woman? I could not imagine. I am trying hard to understand these beliefs. It is 2011 they need to move ahead with the times. I would be so fearful of visiting that Country.
From a (hypothetical) post from a more civilized nation, concerning conditions in the US:
"OMG! Being refused to marry, abused or murdered just for loving the same sex? How uncivilized. Women being arrested for going topless? I could not imagine. I am trying hard to understand these beliefs. It is 2011 - they need to move ahead with the times. I would be so fearful of visiting that Country."
Nothing ever changes, AE - religions and their followers always lag far behind the more civilized.
Not all religions.
Some religions - sadly, a minority - actually tend to lead progress, not lag it.
LOL! I did not say going topless! I said, "Being covered." lololo! Anyway it is sad. I always enjoy your comments.
Ahh, but that was my point. Being covered in the Islamic sense and wearing a shirt vary only by degree; both are unwarranted intrusions into someone's life and both come from the local religious demands.
It is sad, both that the Islamic area goes to such extremes but also that anyone, anywhere, feels the need to control something so inconsequential as what someone else wears.
That one seems a little different to me; there is some (legitimate, I think) concern about public safety but mostly it is an effort to control religion. An effort to prevent outside religion from intruding on local culture.
As such I find the issue as offensive as any other such law. Any real security concerns could be handled without a general ban on burquas. Of course, those wearing burquas very often refuse any effort at compromise, which complicates matters.
This is totally wrong, even though i am speaking as a Muslim person. If the woman did not have any bad intentions and it was for a good purpose, then there is no need to be a victim of such 'invented' laws.
You will find in Islam that certain things are forbidden, like being gay, rape, sex outside of marriage etc, and there are punishments for these kind of acts which are narrated in the Quran.
I would like to make it clear that whatever is written in the Quran, all Muslims have to adhere to. When i say 'Muslims', i mean proper, 100% practicing Muslims who follow the Quran's teachings and Prophet Muhammad's teachings. Some so called 'Muslims' interpret the Quran the wrong way and do something totally against it. This then sends out the message that all Muslims are the same. Although the law in the Quran may seem ancient, it can be interpreted in relevance to our time, and so it is not barbaric or ancient. If you think about it, the laws set out in the Quran and the Bible where established thousands of years ago, they were relevant then and they are relevant now. If you look deeper into the punishments for things which are forbidden in the Quran and Bible, you have to confirm clear proof that a certain act was against the Holy books and then do what is necessary. Nowadays you will probably not find the clear proof or witnesses to establish the relevant punishment.
A verse from the Quran, Surah An Nisa.
And those of your women who commit illegal sexual intercourse, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them (i.e. women) to houses until death comes to them or Allah ordains for them some (other) way.
16. And the two persons (man and woman) among you who commit illegal sexual intercourse, punish them both. And if they repent (promise Allah that they will never repeat, i.e. commit illegal sexual intercourse and other similar sins) and do righteous good deeds, leave them alone. Surely, Allah is Ever the One Who accepts repentance, (and He is) Most Merciful.
17. Allah accepts only the repentance of those who do evil in ignorance and foolishness and repent soon afterwards; it is they to whom Allah will forgive and Allah is Ever All-Knower, All-Wise.
18. And of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil deeds until death faces one of them and he says: "Now I repent;" nor of those who die while they are disbelievers. For them We have prepared a painful torment.
19. O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will, and you should not treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the Mahr (dowry) you have given them, unless they commit open illegal sexual intercourse. And live with them honourably. If you dislike them, it may be that you dislike a thing and Allah brings through it a great deal of good.
Interesting concept, that although the Quran is ancient and barbaric it can be interpreted in such a way that it is relevant today and thus is not ancient or barbaric.
Christians seem to do the same thing; decide their bible doesn't mean what it says but rather something else and is therefore relevant and true in todays world. It is very convenient to have a holy book that says whatever you want it to say.
I understand Muslim beliefs and I am not Muslim. You noted that rape was a crime. Then why are so many being raped? Men not being prosecuted, for taking from a woman. Why are so many being beaten, by someone who claims to love them? Why so many arranged marriages, when there isn't love? There are many men in Iran who are gay but they sit behind closed doors in secret. There are Muslims who are wonderful and others who are Extremists. Same applies for Christians, but all of these issues apply to everyone in the World. 90 lashes is extreme, especially when she was trying to get her point across about the Country. What happened with turn the other cheek? She expressed the truth and in turn she was abused for doing something that was not even a crime.
She may have expressed the truth (at least as she sees it) but historically neither government nor religion has taken kindly to their subjects doing that. In this case it is a double whammy as religion IS the government.
Ane even worse have been the cases of Muslim women who have been raped, and have then received lashes, for bringing dishonour on their families. And turning the other cheek is a philosophy of the Christian faith, not the Islamic one, even though there have been few Christians who have practised it.
Quite ironic that they oppress her for expressing oppression in her film. It is a disgust and disgrace that people think it is ok to do that to another human being. It is all about control and their fears. They hide behind religion and government - There is certainly no dignity in their actions.
I could not imagine leaving that way, nor having men tell me who to marry or what to do. I respect our men of course but (we) American women are entitled to be ourselves should we choose to be.
"this week House Republicans will take up HR 358, the ironically titled “Protect Life Act.” Opponents have rechristened the measure the “Let Women Die” bill because it would allow hospitals that receive federal funds to turn away a woman seeking an abortion in all circumstances, even if an abortion is necessary to save her life"
We're becoming more like Iran every day.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/10 … ving-care/
All done in the name of protecting the dignity of the woman.. 2011 or 3000 will be the same as long as the clerics hold the whip in their hands. Am I glad that women are respected much more where I live
Me too! I am happy that I do not reside in the Middle East and fell bad for all of the women who suffer at the hands of a heartless and cruel man. Many of us take our freedom for granted, but I will not do that anymore.
This is an example of what to expect from a theocracy. I think of things like this every time an American politician says he/she knows what God is thinking. I’m for keeping God in America and out of government.
Here's a way we can get involved and do what we can to help end this awful practice.
http://action.amnesty.org.uk/ea-action/ … ng_action1
Well, its their country and any change should come from within their own society. I am sure the outrage felt by those outside Iran is shared by the youth in Iran. From all accounts, the Iranian youth want a more progressive society where dissent is not a crime and there is greater freedom of speech.
The fact is that punishments such as these are perpetrated by the pressure exerted by the Mullahs in Iran. Most Iranian youth resent barbaric practices such as these just as much as any outsider.
So, there is hope. I hope there is an Arab Spring like revolution in Iran. Post the last elections, there seemed to be a glimmer of that happening, but that movement lost steam and fizzled out.
Absolutely shocking and barbaric, it's inconceivable that anyone should have to live in such an oppressive society. As others have said, we really are lucky to live in places where we have freedom and the right to express ourselves and our opinions.
I just read a article how one young woman was killed by gov't after trying to use her to lure her 'activist' brother into surrendering. It's horrible what is done all in the name of a religion I agree with others - I hope upcoming younger generation bring positive changes to their lands.
Unfortunately, it seems that the younger generation are even more fundamentalist than the older. When we read of suicide bombers, they are always young. In the UK, the older generation of Muslims who came here 50 or 60 years ago, did everything they could to fit into British society. It is some of their grandchildren, who have been radicalised by clerics who preach hatred.
It is such barbaric treatment of people that makes me thankful for being an atheist. It is religion, in this case Islamic which is the cause of such horrifying torture. Without religion, there would be good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things. But it takes religion to make good people do bad things. I cannot understand why the West does not make its position more obvious and there really should be more political condemnation of such hateful practises. We are constantly told that Islam is a religion of peace and humanity. Yet Sharia Law belongs to the Middle Ages, and has no place in the 21st century.
I agree with Izzy that laws are trying to be changed to reflect Sharia law once immigrating to other countries articles online can be found showing stats, protests, etc. Those of us in these free countries are upset that such requests are made or demanded. If they want it - why are they here in our country? no offence intended
It's already happening in the UK according to this 3 year old Times article. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen … 749183.ece
That is actually a far cry from enforcing sharia law, Izzy. It is nothing more than two parties agreeing to be bound by the decision of an arbiter and this has long been a common practice, at least in the US.
The current rash of "TV judges" is an instance of this - two parties agree that the "judges" decision is binding and final. It is enforceable through the court system and cannot be changed. Although the "judges" commonly follow the law, many allow their own concept of justice to come through quite a bit and this is encouraged by the TV network as it makes a better show. The cases are also taken straight from small claims court and judgements are limited to the same limits as those courts.
What is not addressed in your link is what happens when the arbiters decision is contrary to national law, such as the lashing and stoning in the OP. I would suspect that such a decision would be declared illegal. Voluntarily giving up your rights in an inheritance case (from the link) is stupid, but not illegal.
It IS scary, though, and something to be watched carefully though.
"ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.
The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence."
Do you understand what "civil" means?
Both parties must agree to be bound by the court-whose main function is not to put man in conflict with his religion.
Do you have similar objections to Beth Din? "In Jewish Law, Jewish parties are forbidden to take their civil disputes to a secular court and are required to have those disputes adjudicated by a Beth Din."
I'm Jewish and against having batei din (plural of beit din) adjudicate on civil matters. There was a case recently of an Orthodox woman who wasn't given a get (certificate of divorce) by her ex-husband, forbidding her from getting remarried within the scope of Orthodox Judaism.
At least if she wants to get a civil marriage, she can do so.
Of course I understand what 'civil' means in legal terms, and how condescending of you to suggest otherwise.
These Muslim councils deal with things like divorce, child custody, inheritance disputes etc, which are Civil not Criminal cases.
Unfortunately, they always rule according to their religion which gives the man all the rights and the women none.
eg in a recent inheritance hearing, the two sons were awarded the bulk of their parent's estate, while the three daughters got next to nothing.
Under UK Civil Law, it would have been shared equally.
A mother must give her children to their father when they reach 8 years old, regardless if he was the cause of the break-up or even if she left because he was violent to them. That is part of Sharia law which these Muslim councils rule over.
UK Civil law looks at the best place to situate the child - mother or father, and takes all circumstances into account.
A Muslim woman divorcing her husband will find herself penniless and on the streets because these Councils will not award her alimony.
These are CIVIL cases, and their decisions go against UK CIVIL law.
Yes she signs to agree beforehand, but many Muslim women are completely unaware of UK CIVIL law, and are pressurized into signing by their families anyway.
Why bring the Jewish council into this? Although yes they have a similar arrangement.
"UK Civil law looks at the best place to situate the child - mother or father, and takes all circumstances into account."
Is that another joke? You are aware that as recently we were telling children taken into care that their parents were dead and sending them off to a new life in Australia where many ended up as slaves or prostitutes.
I doubt if Vicky Haigh agrees with you and neither does "Sam"
"A HEARTBROKEN mother will discover on Tuesday whether the Government is to contest a landmark court case over the baby daughter she had taken from her by social workers.
Sam, 23, is seeking justice for her daughter Angela who was removed from her care and placed for adoption two years ago, at the age of six months.
She succeeded late last year in persuading the European Court of Human Rights to take up her case, and it has given British authorities until Tuesday to respond.
Neither an alcoholic nor a drug abuser, she says she was not given a chance to prove she would be a good mother and that the council involved acted far too hastily in giving Angela to strangers.
She says her major crime in the eyes of social workers was that she was psychologically damaged after, ironically, spending almost all her own childhood with 12 sets of foster parents. However, independent psychologists hired by her legal team have given her a clean bill of mental health.
Although Sam is hoping to prove UK authorities acted unlawfully, she only wants the best outcome for Angela, even if that means her remaining with her adoptive family whom she describes as “fantastic and loving”.
Having been told that all future children she has would also be removed, she wants the right to move on with her life. Her legal advisers hope the European case will prove pivotal in shedding light on the currently secret process of forced adoption.
Sam, who had grown up in foster care after her own mother struggled to lead a normal life, was 20 when she gave birth to Angela in the north of England in late 2008.
Her local social services were notified and they placed both mother and daughter in a family assessment unit where they shared cramped conditions with alcoholics and drug users.
Six months after Angela was born, Sam, who is well educated and now works for the same council that caused her so much heartache, was called to a meeting with social workers.
Scared and worried, she braced herself for the worst, but when the news came it was still devastating. “It killed me and it still does,” she says now.
Social workers told her they were removing Angela and placing her for adoption. “I’d overheard them talking in the unit for some time before the meeting and I knew what was coming my way,” she added."
And there are many more where that one came from, all examples of courts not doing what is in the child's best interest.
And why bring Beth Din into this! Why not, does it weaken your argument too much?
As nobody else is going to point it out - the news says “may have been sentenced" and is from an American media source - and America has been making threatening Iran for some time now. Mostly of course because Iran refuses to bow to the American dollar and looks set to be selling all its oil to China and Russia.
Also - a previous thread discussed this and the normal situation in these cases it that the sentence is handed down but not carried out.
I am also compelled to point out that making an inti-government movie is a political act - and most people would be screaming like pigs at slaughter if soemone made a movie directly attacking the US in a similar way.
It is up to these societies to sort out their problems internally - I know many Iranians who left Iran with no apparent difficulty for one reason or the other, why this actress went back after making an anti-government movie begs a question or two, and is she in Iran or sentenced in her absence ?
I doubt very much though, that an American making an anti-government film would be sentenced to 90 lashes. True, there are bound to be many who disagree with such a film, but as a democracy, any American would be allowed to produce such a film without fear of government sanctioned physical punishment. If this were not the case, Michael Moore would constantly be black and blue.
You're right, Americans don't get sentanced for being anti-government, instead they're given 90 lashes by a police mace (without trial or sentence) if they're protesting in New York and sometimes tasered to death by police if they happen to be homeless or mentally ill.
I really do think there is a difference between having some rogue bad apples in the police force, and a country which has policies to publicly lash or stone people. If what you are saying is correct about the United States, and that it is standard police policy to brutalise American citizens, then I think Americans should make some form of protest and demand justice. If the US has no democratic process for its people to address what would effectively be a police state, then the United Nations should call the US to order. However, I have a feeling that this is not the situation. There have been cases of rogue police in the UK, however, I don't for one moment believe that this is evidence that I live in a country where police are routinely committing such atrocities or that I live in a police state.
Here is a chance for those wanting to help those persecuted in Iran to Escape to the US. http://capwiz.com/hias/issues/alert/?alertid=39514501
There are many waiting to leave but the need our help!
Maybe the oppressed can find refuge in Pakistan...
In the Pakistani village of Havelian, a Christian Grade 8 student named Faryal Bhatti has been accused of blasphemy after making a spelling mistake on a test, a miscue that has had drastic and life-changing consequences for her whole family.
Bhatti’s case is the latest in a string of incidents that highlight the growing influence of radical Islamists in Pakistan, and it also serves as a reminder of the government’s frequent inability or unwillingness to curb them.
“We live in dangerous times,” one Lahore-based scholar told the Star recently. “The threat of someone accusing you of blasphemy is like the Salem witch trials. They kill you first and ask if you’re guilty later.”
In January, Salmaan Taseer, the governor of Pakistan’s Punjab state, was assassinated by his bodyguard — shot 27 times in the back — after Taseer promised to repeal or at least tone down the country’s blasphemy laws.
His killer, a police officer named Mumtaz Qadri, was recently sentenced to death by hanging. “My dream has come true,” Qadri reportedly said with a smile as the verdict was announced.
He took time to thank his judge, who, immediately after reading the verdict, took an indefinite leave of absence from his position and went into hiding.
That may sound like a good plan to the 13-year-old Bhatti.
School authorities say Bhatti recently misspelled a word in Urdu in a poem written to celebrate the Prophet Muhammad. Instead of the word “Naat,” which meant a poem of praise, Bhatti misplaced a letter with a dot and instead wrote the word “Laanat,” which means curse.
Bhatti’s teacher reportedly beat her in front of her class and then referred the case to the school’s principal.
As news of Bhatti’s infraction spread through the village, close to Abbottabad, the city north of Islamabad where Osama bin Laden hid in plain sight for years, religious clerics rallied locals to protest in the streets.
Bhatti should be expelled, they demanded, and her family evicted from their home. Protestors chanted slogans against the student, her family, and Christianity, The Express Tribune newspaper reported. Her case was a “conspiracy against Islam,” clerics said in Friday sermons, according to the newspaper.
At a packed meeting of clerics, school staff and scholars, Bhatti apologized and said there was no malice in her mistake.
“I am still unclear of Faryal Bhatti’s intentions,” Maulana Syed Ejaz Ali, a cleric from the Jamia Masjid reportedly told the meeting. “The eyes filled with tears show her innocence, but her dot made the word derogatory and this is a good enough reason for a consequence and she should never in her life dare to think anything against Islam.”
Bhatti was expelled. But clerics weren’t done.
Local government administrators agreed to have Bhatti’s mother transferred from her government job as a nurse and the family evicted from their home in a cantonment area populated by public servants.
The high-profile case has further polarized news media and religious leaders alike in nuclear-armed Pakistan.
“I protest against the decision of expelling the child and transferring the mother,” said Maulana Mehfooz Ali Khan, an Islamabad-based cleric. “This action by the committee has printed a very negative image about Islam on the child’s mind, we want the people to learn about Islam, not to make them hate it.”
Several English-language newspapers decried the case. Shyema Sajjad, a deputy editor with Dawn newspaper, wrote in a blog posting that Bhatti’s case is a reminder of the new realities facing Pakistanis.
“Tolerance and respect are two virtues that were kidnapped a long, long time ago, they remain missing even today,” Sajjad wrote.
“But who is going to point these things out? The government’s too busy fighting international threats to focus on the internal ones breeding throughout the country. The few who do take a stand are shot down and although they might not be forgotten, their sacrifices often are. We cause a hue and cry about educating our children and spreading awareness but who needs this education if all it does is create hatred and differences?”
How Bl.... Sad!!
This 'law' is even worse when it comes down to Camel and Donkey Rights!!
Many of those who support and enforce such Draconian 'laws' and practices against Women have at some time in their lives sexually abused Camels and Donkeys!!
I mean... Spare a Thought for those poor beasts of burden.... I hope that sooner or later someone releases a film on their exposure to such despicable 'humping' antics like this!
Sadly, our religious extremists would do the same to homosexuals if not for us heroic Liberals creating laws preventing them from doing so. Unfortunately, that doesn't prevent our religious extremists from using the Bible (and politicians) to commit atrocities and wars that murder millions of people.
Sorry to rain in the "let's bash Iran" parade, but we're hardly in a position to be judging what goes on in other countries. And for the record, I disagree with what happened to this woman and I'm not defending what has happened; people who make that argument are missing the point of what I'm trying to say.
I understand what your saying, but if you think of it this way, then you might be able to understand.
Not many people are religious anymore; we are all here on Earth for a purpose and that is to only worship one God alone. We have been sent here to worship God and be good people towards one another in person and in words. As the years go by, things get worse and we get nearer to the end of the world. For us to get near to the end of the world, the world we live in has to experience certain things and people have to become disbelievers. God will not end the world while people stil worship Him. When the last person on Earth stops worshipping God, the world will start to end. We are not here on Earth for eternity, we will be resurrected and be answerable to God after we die and get punished or go into paradise.
The Quran and the Bible will eventually be called books of ancient times and be part of history, and you have given me proof that this is so right now. When you witness it yourself, you will know and believe then.
Nobody will ever stop worshiping God. I am one of them so the World will not be going anywhere for a long time. I understand the World is getting worse, but the laws that are practiced in Iran are Barbaric. That is my opinion. People live in fear, they can't be themselves and woman are left behind. I am glad to be an American! We can make decisions, work, live, laugh and enjoy life without worrying about being persecuted for our religious or non-religious beliefs.
If you are interested in this forum you should read this: http://kurant82.hubpages.com/hub/IRANAN … TICPOLICY. This artile highlights Iran's corrupt dictatorship. It discusses Iran's recent plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador to the United States on American soil with total disregard to significant loss of civilian lives. It goes into detail about Iran's Dictator Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who is the man that said the Holocaust is a "myth" and he honestly believes it.It discusses Tehran's combination of fanatical ideology, a warped sense of reality and the possibilty of nuclear weapons in Iran.
That is so funny to read considering the OP. It was a secular society that allows you to "enjoy life without worrying about being persecuted for religious or non-religious beliefs". A religious society would never allow for that as can be seen in the OP.
What's so funny is that if we time travel back to the good ole' days of Witch Burnings and Inquisitions, we could say exactly the same thing about Christianity, and criticize in exactly the same way the very same people who today say they "will ever stop worshiping God."
Oh, the hypocrisy of it all.
That's the sad part of people who manipulate true Islamic beliefs and the religion as a whole. People would be surprised at how much freedom and rights women have in Islam, but like i said, a small group of stupid people who call themselves 'muslim' give a bad name for the true religion and believers.
Women in Islam have so many rights but do not get given it due to their ignorance to their religion and responsibilities to women and children.
I am not in any way in disagreement with you, but i thought i would put my point accross.
With all due respect, it's hard to claim your rights under any religion (or political base) when if you do the lashes or stones start landing. It would be rather discouraging.
To say that women don't get their rights because, in their ignorance, they don't claim them doesn't seem fair - at least not when someone else will tell them "No you can't!" and stone them to death. The OP is a case in point.
I agree it would be very difficult for individual women to demand their rights. However, if they only had the courage to join together in huge numbers, and refuse to back down, even in the face of violence, then it might eventually work. I am thinking of the suffragettes, who suffered violence and imprisonment and went on hunger strikes, only to be force-fed. It took decades of constant campaigning, yet they didn't back down, and the movement grew so large, that in the end the government had no choice but to give women the vote. It certainly wasn't an easy struggle, but had those brave women not done so, I doubt women would have the vote even today. And, when I consider that many British women are converting to Islam, and choosing to wear the hijab and to obey their husbands, I do wonder what those suffragettes would make of it.
I think you have a point, who was it who said " Power yields nothing without a fight" I forget now, but so true.
To win your freedom and basic rights is not easy, any more than keeping them is - as you point out our own history shows this all too well.
Unfortunately that is what it takes, though, and until a people are ready to make that fight and suffer the consequences they will remain enslaved. No one else can do it for them; witness the infighting still going on in Iraq after the US toppled the government. Nothing has really changed; different people in charge, but oppression continues nearly as bad as it was. The Iraqi people didn't do the fighting themselves and haven't really gained much as a result.
I agree that change has to be internal, but as far as Iraq is concerned, it is too early to form an opinion on whether they've gained much or not. As of now, may be not, but they may well benefit in the medium to long term. Fact is in a dictatorial system, there is order and that order can ensure decent development and perhaps, as in the case of China, extraordinary development.
When such an edifice crumbles, there is inevitably chaos and confusion and suffering. That was the case with Russia post the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, if the institutions survive and can be developed robustly, there is hope. In Iraq, there is reason to be optimistic yet. You never know how things would be about 10 years from now - hopefully, the Iraqi people would have done good for themselves by then!!
Yet, Islam does not give the same rights to Muslim women as other women in the world who share the same basic human rights we all share. It's obvious Islam is a misogynist religion, just like the other Abrahamic religions. Women are seen as second class citizens.
http://kurant82.hubpages.com/hub/IRANAN … TICPOLICY. This artile highlights Iran's corrupt dictatorship. It discusses Iran's recent plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador to the United States on American soil with total disregard to significant loss of civilian lives. It goes into detail about Iran's Dictator Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who is the man that said the Holocaust is a "myth" and he honestly believes it.It discusses Tehran's combination of fanatical ideology, a warped sense of reality and the possibilty of nuclear weapons in Iran.
I thought we were living in 2011 too.
How dare they treat women like that. I really feel for those ladies, I'm so glad I wasn't born in that part of the world.
I have no respect for their leader or president either to allow that to go on under his nose.
Having spent some time in Saudi Arabia I can honestly say that their attitude is totally crazy...
This is a woman in Saudi sentenced to jail and lashes for being gang raped!!! Her husband called for the death penalty as she had been unfaithful!!
I also know of stories about girls being pushed back into a burning school by the religious police who said it was better that the girls lose their lives than lose their souls by leaving the school without their Abayas and exposing their bodies to the crowds outside.. I have no idea if this is true but have heard it from many sources - Saudi sources mainly!!
I know women who have married Saudi men and are now unable to leave the country and return to family as they cannot travel without their husband's permission..
I can tell you from first hand experience that most of these Saudi Muslim men are hypocrites, they treat women like meat, drink, take drugs and rape women and think it is funny! Women cannot complain about rape as they are the ones in trouble for being alone with the man!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvpjjH2y9v0 Here is a story about an 80 year old giving lashes for "mingling" with the opposite sex... what a hussy!!!!!
But I guess it's all ok.. it's their culture after all!!!!
Well - yes it IS their culture after all. Simply bitching about things and getting on that moral high horse does very little good - or it would have done more good a long time ago !
This kind of cultural finger pointing is just the alternative to actually doing anything about it. The current approach is to support the most horrendous dictators and bomb the crap out of any that are so poor they can't resist the money making aggression.
Peace and education and good example are the ways to work against these issues.
And good example starts at home, THEY consider you are totally immoral with your pornography and commodification of women and children, and I guess there are loads more easy targets in our screwed up western culture.
"And good example starts at home, THEY consider you are totally immoral with your pornography and commodification of women and children, and I guess there are loads more easy targets in our screwed up western culture."
Recommend1 the problem I see is that they behave far worse than we in the west when it comes to the treatment of women etc, I have seen it first hand!
I know some real A-holes in the west but they were like pleasant sunday school teachers compared to the pigs that I met socially in Saudi Arabia - I was shocked and appalled at their behavior at parties that I attended and stopped going!!!!
Why do you think there is a 5hour queue to go over the bridge to Bahrain from Saudi at the weekend, do you think the Saudi's are off to visit the mosques there or do you think maybe they are off to get drunk and chase the prostitutes?
I am sorry, I know some good Muslims, but the majority of Saudis that I have met are not good Muslims, they are hypocritical drug taking drunken pigs!! I apologize to the good Muslims out there as I see nothing wrong with your religion, but there are too many people claiming to do things in the name of your religion just to satisfy their own perverted needs such as buying and marrying young girls of 7 and 8!!
It is still 'their' cultural business. The huge divide and the obscene wealth of the few is also partly dopwn to the west. The US and the UK are the biggest pillars of the societies where all these things are indeed as you say. Then some of us put up our hands in horror at these 'abuses', while condoning and envouraging them as a nation - and others are horrified when the people rise up and then start whinging that "Oh my god !" they are Muslim ! Religion has always been either the favoured tool of oppression or the refuge of oppressed people.
In realtion to putting our own house in order, our ex-pats that I know and see every day here, and all over the world for most of my working life - do not need to queue to get into another country to practice our favourite vices, we practice daily in our own homes and in our protected compounds. I never lacked a bed partner, booze or entertainment and I have been fairly reserved in my life !
Feel so bad about how women and people in general there have to live. One more example of why there is no reason for Americans to be in that business. It will not change because we try to install our way of thinking.
I agree with what AEvans is saying here about Iran. But lets balance this out a bit. Saudi Arabia - not so long ago - beheaded a princess for commtting adultery. Richard Nixon: in 1973, promised King Faisal Saud that America would protect his kingdom against any enemy. This is still the case. Saudi Arabia can do no wrong.
The American fifth fleet is stationed in Bahrain. Bahraini forces: backed up by Saudi Arabia, have recently sentenced women protesters to 15 years in prison for chanting slogans in a shopping mall. They have also beaten schoolgirls as youg as 11 years of age with rubber hoses. Not to mention arresting doctors and nurses for doing their job. The mass graves are multiplying in Bahrain. What are the western leaders saying about this situation? Nothing.
It is clear that politicians here in the west are faithfully following the orders of their masters: the banking cartels and supra-national corporations, by demonizing and fomenting war against Iran ( and Syria etc). The money-power-elite: who own the media that seems to dictate much of the opinion expressed here on Hubpages, want to get their tentacles into the Iranian economy and take over their oilfields. If it takes a war that is going to kill millions of people to achieve this then so be it. The power elite doesn't care about whether we live or die anyway. But what I find strange is the number of ordinary people that seem to want to defend the position of the super rich. Don't they understand that it is their sons and daughters - their brothers and sisters - that are going to be doing the dying?
Uncritically swallowing the propaganda that is being put out by a media system owned by the merchants of death is bad enough. But to then go on and propagate the unbalanced distortions - and often downright lies - even further is unforgiveable.
Wake up to the lies.
Even in the West, we are so conditioned by the class system, even though we like to pretend that that is all behind us. I too have been amazed that it is usually the poorest in society, who are defending the right of the super rich to hang onto their money, when they should be demanding their own fair share. Some people are natural sheep and believe they need a shepherd to lead them. The rich paying so little in tax will not use the money saved to raise the living standards of their employees, but will buy bigger yachts.
Perhaps these people understand that their fair share is what they can earn themselves; that it does not include money taken from the rich whether by law or the point of a gun.
Not all people demand that someone else support them, and even the poor occasionally have the pride to support themselves without charity from the rich.
I don't think the average working class person expects charity from anyone. What they do expect is to be able to earn a living wage, without the fear of losing their home and their families ending up homeless, whilst they watch the rich bankers who caused the economic situation in the first place enjoying their riches. To be paid for the work you do, is not charity.
True. To be paid more than your work is worth based on free enterprise is charity, however.
When a person then demands that the welfare system, supported and paid for by those with more money, provide the luxuries that the poor want it is charity. Such things as a nice car, big home, cell phones and TV service are all luxuries in my mind.
On the contrary, it is the rich that demand that someone else support them and willingly accept charity from the poor.
As it says in the Bible, in Mark 4:25
"Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him."
Actually eminently fair according to many hubbers, those of the ragged trousered philanthropist persuasion anyway.
Ah, The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, now that takes me back. I am definitely of that persuasion.
Really! You surprise me, I'd never have thought of you as a ragged trousered philanthropist!
I'm maybe not a ragged trousered philanthropist, but I loved the book. (sssshh, don't tell anyone, they'd accuse me of being a communist)
Forget those evil banksters for the moment. Who else is rich and accepting govt. handouts? The stockholders (you and I) of GM? Bill Gates? The guy down the street with a $100,000 income that takes advantage of tax breaks? Who do you refer to?
Am I taking charity from the workers at GM because I own a little stock there and earn a few pennies in dividends? Does that make me one of the evil rich living off the labor of the poor?
I refer to all those who employ others and make profits off their labour. Yes, that includes stockholders, Bill Gates and the guy down the street with a $100,000 income. They don't make money with their own sweat, they leech off others with far less.
Yes, you are taking charity from the workers at GM, have you ever considered that they might rather have more of the money they earn rather than give it to you?
You might make a fine case for a clan of hunter gatherers, but when the normal person can't afford to run their own business, buying equipment and supplies along with all the rest of the costs, it means that someone will have to be the evil business owner and make money from the labor of others.
That's life today. Personally I prefer it to picking tomatoes from my own garden and peddling them on a street corner. It gives us the opportunity to multiply our labors many many times with a little capital and is what makes the luxuries we all enjoy possible.
Muddled thinking Wilderness.
When the normal person can't afford to run his business he runs to the banks and borrows the life savings of those who work for him but only of course if his face fits and he is seen t belong to the ruling classes.
You don't for one moment imagine that Bill Gates was born phenomenally rich do you?
So the workers that put money in a bank, who then loans it out, are making money off that evil banker via interest. They are thus taking charity from both the bank and, indirectly, from their employer as they have not used their hands to earn that money.
We are thus all on charity and to be despised.
Bill Gates was not born rich; he worked (and worked hard) for his money as well as multiplying his efforts by buying the labor of others at a fair price. The epitome of the American way, he did not get rich by taking charity from his workers - he paid fair and square for it and used that labor in ways that produced maximum return. For which he is to be congratulated, not scorned as a thief. Whether or not I agree with his marketing ploys the efficient use of purchased labor neither makes him a thief nor a charity case.
I see, so taking money off others when you have plenty is to be applauded, it's only when you have little that it becomes despicable!
Right, glad we got that cleared up.
I can't imagine how you got that from my post; YOU are the one that insists that any income not earned by the sweat of your brow is despicable. Not I.
But we are hijacking this thread pretty badly. Perhaps on another forum.
You obviously do not understand what happened with the bank bail-outs. This was charity - a welfare payment - given to the rich by the relative poor. This shows up the 'free market' for what it actually is: a rigged game that the rich will always win. They can't lose because they don't put up their own money as a stake in the game. They put up yours.
No, the difference is in our meaning of the term "rich". I refer to perhaps anyone earning over 1/4 million, not just a small handful of people in a particular industry that the govt. bailed out to prevent total collapse of our economy.
The bail outs were designed to prevent the collapse of the banks not the American economy. Although the banks did threaten to crash the economy: by severely contracting the money supply, if the bail out money (QE 1 and 2) wasn't forthcoming.
Contrast this with what happened in Iceland. There the banks were allowed to fail: which is what should happen in a free market, competitive system, and the government refused to impoverish the Icelandic people by foisting the bank's debts onto them. Iceland now has the second strongest - after Germany - economy in Europe.
IMHO; it doesn't matter where you are from, where you currently live, or how you were raised, or what your beliefs may be, this is simply wrong. It has to boil down to the human heart. It is an ingrained instinct that tells our moral compass that which is right and that which is wrong. I find it difficult to believe that any sane human would inflict this kind of torture on another for such mundane reasons. I don't care who you are or if you read the Koran, Torah, Bible, or any other religious materials, you have to know this is wrong. No matter your lifestyle, age, political standing, sexuality, or race, you have to know this is wrong. If you do not know this is wrong, I will clarify it for you right here and now; THIS IS WRONG.
You are mistaken. Yes, I know it is wrong just as you do: as you say that knowledge is ingrained into you and I by our culture and heritage.
It is not ingrained into those in that area of the world, however. That it is right is what is taught and enforced. The people there, for the most part, accept it to be right. If this were not so such actions would not be taking place, although that has to be tempered with the understanding that change takes time. It will take many years after people don't agree to see a stop to it, but an end to such barbarism is coming. There is hope.
I reiterate; any sane human...
I can see your point wilderness absolutely. However I still think that no matter what we are taught, something inside has to hesitate at some point in the training process. At least I hope this is the case. I too feel there is hope.
You realize that you are claiming that hard core muslims aren't sane? I agree; they aren't sane by our standards.
But I can't think of any of our core values that haven't been different in some other place or some other time. There is nothing universal or engraved in stone in our morality or ethical structure; it all changes through time and circumstance. Remember the Donner party?
No. What I am claiming is that ANY human who displays such violent behavior may well be lacking in sanity at some level.
I do remember the Donner party. I wouldn't personally compare these two situations, but since you have, here are my thoughts;
I doubt that those who lash other humans as punishment have no other recourse available. Whereas the Donner party had to eat or die. And not all of the Donner party actually ate other humans, only those who placed their own life above the usual respect for the dead. This too was a choice in behavior. As, in my opinion, are the actions of the lashers in the OP. We can rarely revise the color of our eyes, but we can always revise our social actions and responsibility to the humane treatment of our fellow humans, no matter what we have been taught.
The lash was a fairly recent punishment in the UK. There is a faction that would like to see it returned.
Actually it was called birching and involved stripping young men naked,or near naked, strapping them down and beating them on their bare buttocks. It was finally abolished on main land Britain in 1962, in the Isle of Man in 1976.
Those Brits reading this, care to be so self righteous about Islam using beating as a punishment?
The Isle on Man officially abolished birching in 1993, although it had been some years since it was used. There was strong opposition to abolishing it though from the islanders, because it was they considered essential for the punishment of homosexuals.
And let's not forget that America executes more people: sometimes by drone strikes without any trial whatsoever, than any other country in the world.
But that can be said about any value held by any society. 250 years ago, very few people questioned slavery. 150 years ago, few in the West questioned the fact that women could not vote. 60 years ago in the US people took segregation for granted. The first people to question such things would have been considered at best, eccentric, at worst dangerous. Yet, the changes happened. If Western society can evolve, I can't see why the Islamic world shouldn't do the same.
That's correct - every society sets its own standards of right and wrong. There is no universal standard and nearly every value we have has been different at some other time or place. For instance, one our most powerful values is the care of children, but other societies have killed children for being the wrong sex, because the Gods said to or because the rains didn't come on time.
They can change, but first they have to want to and then they have to put out the effort to do it. There will always be those that don't want the change and their resistance must be overcome. By the people of the society, not by outsiders.
And it really does take time. Slavery existed in this country for centuries even though some found it wrong. The abuse of women under Islam has only recently come under attack and it will likely take a long time to correct the situation and change that culture. It won't be done in a year or two and it won't be done without bloodshed, but it's hard to keep freedom down forever.
But it isn't the entire Islamic world that is set in the stone age, just some fanatics.
My ex landlady is a Muslim and by no means could you call her oppressed in any way.
Just as some parts of the western world are still struggling to enter the 20th century, some parts of Islam are struggling to enter the fifteenth but they'll get there eventually.
Absolutely - I certainly didn't intend to lump all of the Muslim faith together. Indeed, it is that obvious difference that reinforces the idea that the culture is changing.
As Islam has more and more contact with more progressive, western cultures it is inevitable that more and more Muslims see how others live and want it. This is the major bone of contention with hard core Muslims; not that the West is oppressive, or evil or anything else. It is that western culture is destroying the old ways simply by existing.
I don't mean to minimize the damage to lives and property that the west has done to the near east, but at the root it is only a tool; only an excuse to stop the cultural change that is happening. Only a tool to be used to maintain power for the Islamic leaders. In some ways the wars and destruction pale before the simple exposure to western culture and mores that our soldiers bring with them as they fight.
That the OP has raised such a fuss here is indicative of that; such action is intolerable in our society and Muslim women are coming to know that and demand it for themselves. It is destroying Islam as the religion it was and creating a new version of it - one that the powerful don't want to see.
And we mustn't lose sight of the fact that the woman was sentenced, at the moment the sentence hasn't been carried out and there is plenty of precedent for it not being carried out.
As Islam has more and more contact with more progressive, western cultures it is inevitable that more and more Muslims see how others live and want it. This is the major bone of contention with hard core Muslims; not that the West is oppressive, or evil or anything else. It is that western culture is destroying the old ways simply by existing.
And where might I ask have you uncovered this pearl of wisdom? What evidence do you have to suggest that the Muslim community would want to live as the west? It is with this mindset, that individuals from the west would actually accept what western leaders have to say, that we should impose are values on others, because that's what their poor citizens desire. It's completely unsubstantiated.
I don't see it as a "Muslim" or a "Christian" matter. People of each persuasion have done some terrible things down through the ages, and there are fanatics on either side today who behave in cruel, mindless, controlling fashion.
I see the main problem is that some people live selfish, unthinking lives. You could almost call it animal behaviour, but that would be an unfair slight on the "animals," which don't normally act in the way that humans do.
To decapitate a person, callously, enjoying that persons anguish knowing what is going to be done; hang them, slowly, a strangling process rather than a quick jerk to death; torturing a man or woman in the presence of their children; causing a family to disown their children or parent because they do not adhere to or accept a religious point of view; and any number of other uncivilised and perverted ways of dealing with your opponents ---- can anyone honestly say that it's done for "god?"
Those in muslim countries need to know that we, of the Western Cult, did some terrible things too, not least with the Crusades in the 13th and 14th centuries. But EVERYONE of us needs to come alive to our responsibilities if we want to be accepted as genuine partners in this beautiful world. Not one of us can claim to be innocent.
by Scott Belford 17 months ago
Donald Trump, after some discussion with few of his top generals, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense as well as some of his advisors, over a two or three day period, decided to assassinate the second most powerful person in the Iranian government - General Qasem Soleimani, the leader...
by Deforest 8 years ago
The US officially removed the MKO (people's Mujahedin of Iran) from its blacklist of terrorist organizations. The same ones who recently killed Iranian scientists. The same organization that was trained, that is funded by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. The US administration just gave them the...
by aka-dj 8 years ago
How cone no-one is talking about this?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15688354This is Sharia law at work, PROVING to the world how "merciful" Allah is, and how women are considered equal, or should I say valued.I invite my Muslim hubbers to justify this. PLEASE show us how this is...
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 23 months ago
Should the president have a meeting with Rouhani? Should a "deal" be made? The wrong response might provoke some radical reaction in the US. Is the president walking back on his position? Who should be advising the preisdent on Iran?
by Ralph Deeds 11 years ago
Some are saying that the defiant protests over the election are undermining the authority of the Ayatollah and his government and may make future protests more likely and harder to control whether or not the immediate goal of a recount or another election is achieved.
by Longhunter 9 years ago
Iran says it's a 'lie'. Hillary calls it a 'dangerous escalation'. Saudis say Iran 'must pay the price.'What's your opinion? What, if anything, should the U.S. do? Since it was the Saudi Ambassador that was targeted, should it be up to the Saudis to respond? What say you?
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|