Posted on 11/02/2006 4:56:41 PM PST by Racehorse
A court in Saudi Arabia has sentenced the victim of a gang rape to 90 lashes of the whip because she was alone in a car with a man other than her husband.
The Jerusalem Post reports the high-profile and controversial trial ended with the convicted rapists sentenced to punishments ranging from one thousand lashes to as little as 80 — 10 fewer than the victim — along with prison terms of between one and five years. The woman's family says it will appeal what it considers inadequate sentences for the rapists.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
A court in Saudi Arabia has sentenced the victim of a gang rape to 90 lashes of the whip because she was alone in a car with a man other than her husband.
The Jerusalem Post reports the high-profile and controversial trial ended with the convicted rapists sentenced to punishments ranging from one thousand lashes to as little as 80 — 10 fewer than the victim — along with prison terms of between one and five years. The woman's family says it will appeal what it considers inadequate sentences for the rapists.
I don't see the reference to Prince George of which you allude. Can you provide the link, obviously other than Racehorse's original post? Thanks in advance.
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=21992
Charles apparently has expressed unusual interest in Islam in recent years, has given large sums of money to its causes, and was even rumored to have converted to the religion nearly a decade ago. He has insisted that Islam is a religion of peace and that Western media have given citizens a false understanding of Islam’s purposes, Mohler noted.
I didn't find the exact quote but I found enough to make me think Prince Charles is odd.
That's a reason for hope. Radical Islam feeds on itself even more than it feeds on us. It may take another generation or two, but we can hope that it will be replaced by a more docile mindset, at least among those who wield power.
Prince George?
I was referring to the link Dog Gone posted at #15.
I believe this discussion supports the view that Islam in becoming insidious.
Agreed, but let's recall that 90 lashes is often a death sentence anyway.
10 lashes is a hell of a punishment. Watch a video clip of somebody being lashed before you think it's no big deal.
30 lashes is enough to cause most men to lose consciousness from the pain. Sometimes they wait until the person regains consciousness to resume; other times they just keep flailing away at the unconscious body until the skin is shredded and the muscle is torn from the bone. Infection sets in and the person is maimed for life, if they're not dead within a week.
Three times 30, for a woman? She's dead. They just refuse to call it a death sentence. Stoning would be faster and more honest a sentence. Beheading would be more humane.
What a horrible society that is, to still believe in this age that that is how human beings are to be treated.
OK, now I see and I agree with you
Good night all.
:-)
That's comforting thought. /s
Don't get me wrong. I understand what you're saying.
I'm just not sure Western Civ can last that long with the mad mullahs racing for WMDs while idiot princes and world leaders excuse their behavior in the name of tolerance and diversity.
The Saudi woman got off easier than Diana, for that matter.
And the royal family doesn't do the beheading thing anymore -
( although Charles DNA might explain his affection for Islam when you consider that)- oh no- they arrange 'accidents' these days!
Amazing that his grandparents fought the Nazis and Chuck became one.
Don't kid yourself. 90 lashes, she's dead meat. I'll bet you couldn't find a good racehorse that would be standing after 90 lashes ;) Blackbird.
Now, I feel like I've been lashed. :-)
Of course you're both right. But that was only part of the story, I think. Did you notice, her family is appealing the assailants' lenient sentences, but Brit makes no mention of an appeal for leniency or absolution on behalf of the daughter?
It beggars the imagination that such a sentence could be meted out in reality. We would never wish such a thing upon you. ;-)
> Of course you're both right. But that was only part of the story, I think. Did you notice, her family is appealing the assailants' lenient sentences, but Brit makes no mention of an appeal for leniency or absolution on behalf of the daughter?
Well, personally I don't think her family is wrapped too tight. 80-1000 lashes isn't "lenient" -- it's a virtual death sentence just like 90.
But yes, it's quite telling that they aren't rising to their daughter's defense. I'm sure they (or at least the men of her family) believe she earned death by the whip, for being so bold as to be alone with a man not her husband.
Good lord, to think that these savages want to be given equal standing in the civilized world. I say give them a few hundred years to get out of the Middle Ages. They're as bad as Europe (and to some extent the North American colonies) were in the 1600's and 1700's. Well, to be fair, the 1800's in the U.S. weren't exactly free of culturally-sanctioned cruelty. Okay, well, a hundred years anyway. Hmmm, maybe we're not -that- far ahead of them. Nevertheless, enough to be able to say that our courts don't do that kind of crap any more.
I'm sure he likes the "beat your woman if she doesn't behave" part too. He must think that part would allow him to beat up on his bossy Mum, and put her in her place.
I despise these people more and more every day.
If she had been in Pakistan, her attackers might not have been punished at all; but she would have gone to jail. If she had been in parts of Nigeria or Iran, she might have had a long prison sentence and then been stoned.
Little justice for women when men attack in these countries, because they are assumed guilty of setting themselves up.
No kids here, but I echo your hopes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.