Slashdot Mirror


Saudi Arabia Implements Electronic Tracking System For Women

dsinc writes "Denied the right to travel without consent from their male guardians and banned from driving, women in Saudi Arabia are now monitored by an electronic system that tracks any cross-border movements. Since last week, Saudi women's male guardians began receiving text messages on their phones informing them when women under their custody leave the country, even if they are travelling together. 'The authorities are using technology to monitor women,' said columnist Badriya al-Bishr, who criticised the 'state of slavery under which women are held' in the ultra-conservative kingdom. Women are not allowed to leave the kingdom without permission from their male guardian, who must give his consent by signing what is known as the 'yellow sheet' at the airport or border."

591 comments

  1. View from common person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "heh, let's just tell all of their women to come to the West where they will be appreciated." said a John Forbes from Chicago Illinois while he was filling up his SUV with 60 gallons of premium gas.

    1. Re:View from common person by tqk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "... let's just tell all of their women to come to the West where they will be appreciated."

      How, pray tell, can they do that without permission from their (slave?) masters?

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:View from common person by sageres · · Score: 0

      I have seen some really beautiful eyes behind these burkas. I say they should come to the US. We need more (*cough*) beautiful women (*cough*) here that we could liberate from these tight coverings (*cough *cough).

    3. Re:View from common person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did he want to appreciate them right over the car hood?

    4. Re:View from common person by pspahn · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I bet they can't wait to come here and acquire tuberculosis.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
  2. Apartheid by Richard_J_N · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When South Africa did this (to black people, rather than women), under Apartheid, the civilised world rightly condemned it, and imposed trade sanctions.
    Where are the trade embargoes on Saudi Arabia? They're in contravention of the UN declaration of Human Rights.

    1. Re:Apartheid by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Won't happen, and remember this is in accordance with sharia law too. Which is supposed to elevate women above western standards, or so flappy headed groups keep telling us.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      South Africa only has gold and diamonds, not oil. Also, South Africa doesn't have a state religion to hide behind. Any criticism of Saudi Arabia would be "anti-islamic" bigotry.

    3. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but they have lots of oil, that makes everything ok ...

    4. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      True. That's because our governments and we as individuals are hypocrites. In protest, I will bike my 60km commute in cold weather due to lack of mass transit and pay a babysitter for taking care of my kids for the extra two hours every day it will take me to travel to work.

      No, I won't.

    5. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When South Africa did this (to black people, rather than women), under Apartheid, the civilised world rightly condemned it, and imposed trade sanctions.
      Where are the trade embargoes on Saudi Arabia? They're in contravention of the UN declaration of Human Rights.

      The difference between diamonds and oil: it may be nice to have diamonds, but in general you don't _need_ them. Oil on the other hand...

    6. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When South Africa did this (to black people, rather than women), under Apartheid, the civilised world rightly condemned it, and imposed trade sanctions. Where are the trade embargoes on Saudi Arabia? They're in contravention of the UN declaration of Human Rights.

      Because it goes against Political Correctness.

      See Apartheid was done by white people against black people. Political Correctness says it's okay to be against that. Matter of fact it's mandatory.

      But sharia law is implemented by "brown people" against other "brown people" and comes from a non-Western mostly non-white religion. So Political Correctness says that anyone opposing it must be a racist. Political Correctness does not allow for a principled stand against anything. It is strictly based on group identity.

      So if you think treating women like shit just because they are women is brutal and oppressive, well you're just oppressing those poor brown people by trying to enforce your Western norms on their culture. How dare you say that no person should systematically abuse any other person for any reason? Who are you to judge?! So on and so on... It's why nothing ever changes.

      When the day comes that we finally figure out that WE'RE ALL HUMAN FUCKING BEINGS then perhaps more of us can be adults about this. Until then the group-identity hypersensitivity will reign supreme, in its shrill, foaming-at-the-mouth unreasonable "that's so offensive!" sort of way.

      The only thing dumber than Political Correctness are the people who don't question it.

    7. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      At that time the UK derailed all sanction attempts on South Africa for economical interests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Apartheid_Movement

      and BTW, countries like Pakistan and the Taliban in Afghanistan are not any better...

    8. Re:Apartheid by tsa · · Score: 4, Funny

      I guess we will buy more oil from them in the future. That'll teach them a lesson!

      --

      -- Cheers!

    9. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unlike the Saui Arbian atrocity, the chinese law doesn't single out a very specific part of the population. It's bad, but not as unfair as the Arab asshole method.

    10. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Barack Obama will mention it in a speech along with a speech mentioning Apartheid as an "Act of Evil", and then therefore have his bases covered.

    11. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Won't happen, and remember this is in accordance with sharia law too. Which is supposed to elevate women above western standards, or so flappy headed groups keep telling us.

      Sure, just like Islam is the "religion of peace" even though, of the 120 or so active shooting wars happening today, Muslims are involved in over 100 of them.

      At least during the Crusades and the Inquisition, nobody went around talking about how the Catholic Church was the "institution of peace". It's like the farther back in time you go, the more sense the average person had.

    12. Re:Apartheid by DarkOx · · Score: 0

      That was because people who were in leadership positions the. Had been educated before this moral relativism, politically correct, every opinion is valid; crap took hold. People have been taught not to think not to judge. It's sad really because there is such a thing as justice, there is right and wrong and now so man are blind to it. So everyone just sits by why these travesties unfold.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    13. Re:Apartheid by Nostromo21 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is this a patented method...? :)

      Really, do muslim men have such small dicks & huge, over-inflated egos, that they cannot keep their wimen in check with flowers, chocolate & pretty lies? *duck*

      Seriously, this is an entire country supporting gender-terrorism (there, I said it first!), but that's ok, because they have a 'state religion' to hide behind & rationalise an oppressive law??? Isn't it high time you yanks stopped chasing the oil/money & started disbanding all state religious leaderships in the world with your anti-WOMDs & laser-guided asshole destroyers...? Just please, for GOD'S SAKE, don't turn them into representative demoncracies FFS!

    14. Re:Apartheid by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, but we need their oil. Oil is more important that women's rights, obviously.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:Apartheid by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      are you saying its all about the flappy headed Mo's

      (I know, I'm in trouble for that one).

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    16. Re:Apartheid by dmbasso · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yep, and the prophet Muhammad is the perfect man, whose acts are a model for all to follow, for all eternity.

      So go ahead and marry a 6 years old girl, wait for her to be 9 or 10, and then you can have sex with her (his dear Aisha).

      Ahh, but she is a girl! That's where the Catholic priests got it wrong! To rape a 10 year old boy is wrong, but if it's a girl it's ok! Allahu akbar!

      Too bad hell is a fictitious place, these people really deserve it.

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    17. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't run a tank on diamonds my friend...

    18. Re:Apartheid by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To leave China, you need an exit visa. This is also in contravention of UN declaration of human rights. Would you expect a trade embargo against the Chinese too?

      Its even worse in Saudi Arabia .. according to the great and powerful wikepedia Exit Visas are required by foreign workers in Saudi Arabia and Qatar

      .. Hence at the end of a foreign worker's employment period, the worker must secure clearance from his/her employer stating that the worker has satisfactorily fulfilled the terms of his/her employment contract or that the worker's services are no longer needed ..

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    19. Re:Apartheid by Nostromo21 · · Score: 1

      "Political Correctness" - top oxymoron of the 21st century! How did those two words even get into the same phrase/sentence orignally? *boggle*

      My main exception to sharia law is that it makes women cover up all their good bits in public. So the only spank mag you can get in the middle east is 'Play Ankle". There, politically incorrect enough for you? ;)

      There is so much wrong with people in the world today, I'm not even sure why I bother talking about it, thinking about it or worrying about it. I think we need a total wipe & reset personally & have no doubt someone will start the cascade sequence fairly soon, perhaps in my lifetime. Game over.

    20. Re:Apartheid by Urban+Nightmare · · Score: 1

      You do realize that they supply the USA with oil and hence they really can't condemn them and don't care to even try.

    21. Re:Apartheid by labnet · · Score: 1

      While the crude is sweet and light, nothing will happen.

      --
      46137
    22. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly why I moved closer to work. How close? Well it's about 200 meters from my back door to the office door now. I haven't bought gas in a month! (sounds like a Ford commercial now).

    23. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please let this be true. I some time feel I'm the only one that thinks human kind is a blight on this universe and should be wiped out. No I don't want to die but man the world is a fucked up place.

      Now back to the lab to work on that super virus... Okay I'm just going home to watch Survivor and bitch about life some more. Happy.

    24. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sorry but ALL religion is insidious and evil. It is a means of control for the unintelligent and mentally lazy.

    25. Re:Apartheid by ilguido · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The sanctions against South Africa had positive effects like devaluing the rand 17 times and so making diamonds much cheaper. Sanctions against Saudi Arabia on the other hand could rise the oil price.

    26. Re:Apartheid by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      this is in accordance with sharia law too. Which is supposed to elevate women above western standards, or so flappy headed groups keep telling us.

      It is suppossed to. The problem is that men are in charge of the implementation and that's a common problem across the entire world. Regardless of the laws on the books, if the people interpreting them are not representative of the people they are applied to, the end result is going to be biased like health insurance paying for viagra but not birth control pills.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    27. Re:Apartheid by thoth · · Score: 2

      I don't there will be sanctions. Unlike Saudi Arabia, south Africa didn't have a valuable resource the would needs - oil. In this case, economics trumps morality, unfortunately.

    28. Re:Apartheid by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "If not, turn em around and play in the mud," at least according to the religious leadership of the Cathos and Mussies.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    29. Re:Apartheid by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      When South Africa did this (to black people, rather than women), under Apartheid, the civilized world rightly condemned it, and imposed trade sanctions. Where are the trade embargoes on Saudi Arabia? They're in contravention of the UN declaration of Human Rights.

      Hmm... Does South Africa have any substantial Oil reserves/production for export? No? There's your answer.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    30. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK was too busy setting up concentration camps in Africa at the time... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising demned darkies wot wot

    31. Re:Apartheid by ehiris · · Score: 1

      Are you fucking kidding me? We sell our top of the line people killing machines to them.
      We'd go broke.

    32. Re:Apartheid by Bengie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      To be fair, it was "normal" back then for them to have sex that young. I'm sure 1300 years from now, certain "normal" things that we do today will be looked at as barbaric.

    33. Re:Apartheid by dmbasso · · Score: 2, Interesting

      10 years old is the lower bound of the beginning of puberty in girls, in other words, definitely not ready for sex/reproduction. But it seems Aisha was somehow praised for being a true virgin, that is, when Muhammad first raped her she didn't have had her first period yet.

      The upper bound of the end of puberty in girls is 17 and, as Chef from South Park correctly said, that is the right time for sex (laws and social conventions aside).

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    34. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An embargo isn't made because of Human Rights violations, the violations are called out when (and only when) they want to make an embargo. Saudi Arabia's government is friendly, so don't expect any form of sanction against them.

    35. Re:Apartheid by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry but ALL religion is insidious and evil. It is a means of control for the unintelligent and mentally lazy.

      With organized religion there is some truth to that.

      When an individual is seeking a way to express the more abstract parts of his or her nature, what is called spirituality, and finds that some of the best real teachers had one "persuasion" or another but tend to all say very similar things, as though they all saw the same things and put them in different terms according to different frameworks ... there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Ignoring the progress made by those who came before means you are doomed to constantly reinvent the wheel.

      The trick any real individual understands is to not get caught up with any particular language or framework, to instead focus on what truly advanced people have seen or done. It's the difference between looking at the finger that points, versus seeing the heavenly constellation it tries to point out.

      Obviously individuals who really grok this tend not to herd together in large congregations with bylaws and conventions and someone to take the meeting minutes. For the most part, that is for the insecure who need to be surrounded by the like-minded to feel validated. Thus anyone who seriously questions or objects is a sort of threat. I for one say fuck that.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    36. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should grant asylum to all women in saudi arabia. If the women leave lets see what happens to their country in 60 years!

    37. Re:Apartheid by ahabswhale · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you seriously blaming the lack of an international response to this situation on political correctness? I just want to be certain because you would win my "Who said the stupidest fucking thing I've heard all year contest" without an even remotely close competitor.

      NOBODY fucks with Saudi Arabia because of oil. Period. Political correctness doesn't even enter the picture. If they so much as fart in public, the price of oil doubles. Seriously, pull your head out of your ass and wake the fuck up.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    38. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But sharia law is implemented by "brown people" against other "brown people" and comes from a non-Western mostly non-white religion. So Political Correctness says that anyone opposing it must be a racist. Political Correctness does not allow for a principled stand against anything. It is strictly based on group identity.

      Have you ever even met anyone from Saudi Arabia? As a group they are no more "brown people" than Jews, Turks, Greeks, Spaniards, or Italians (all of whom, along with Irish and Slavic people were not even considered "white" in America at some point in time).

      So, the real irony is your post is seemingly trying to be anti-racist via semi-ironic use of borderline offensive language, but it turned out being actually racist through your inability to follow your own advice. No one needs you to try to categorize their vague racial makeup; let them identify with whatever group they want to be identified with. And skin color is becoming a really useless, ignorant way of doing that. It's about culture, not color.

    39. Re:Apartheid by nukenerd · · Score: 2

      "Political Correctness" - top oxymoron of the 21st century! How did those two words even get into the same phrase/sentence orignally?

      It was originally introduced as a joke phrase, as a way of ridiculing those who preached and practised it. So it was deliberately ridiculous, as you observe. However, when those who preach and practise it heard the phrase, being so disconnected from reality they failed to recognise it as a joke at their expense and, thinking the phrase was rather good, began to use it themselves. Then eventually they did realise it was a joke against them and they now avoid it.

    40. Re:Apartheid by gallondr00nk · · Score: 1

      Where are the trade embargoes on Saudi Arabia? They're in contravention of the UN declaration of Human Rights.

      Because oil.

    41. Re:Apartheid by lucm · · Score: 2

      Too bad hell is a fictitious place

      Clearly you have never visited Laramie, Wyoming, especially during the winter (which lasts about 10.5 months out there)

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    42. Re:Apartheid by iluvcapra · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You make it too complicated. The international boycotts against South Africa were justified because they were effective. An embargo against Saudi Arabia would be ineffective, even if it were possible.

      In short, South Africa was a small country that could be pushed around; Saudi Arabia makes too much oil for that to be possible. Any such demonstrations would be pointless and would cause more harm than the original insult.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    43. Re:Apartheid by mjwx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Won't happen, and remember this is in accordance with sharia law too. Which is supposed to elevate women above western standards, or so flappy headed groups keep telling us.

      The only idiot who has said Sharia law will elevate women above western standards is you.

      The reason this wont be condemned like Apartheid in South Africa is that Saudi Arabia has oil and South Africa didn't.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    44. Re:Apartheid by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      At least during the Crusades and the Inquisition, nobody went around talking about how the Catholic Church was the "institution of peace".

      Pax vobiscum.

    45. Re:Apartheid by dmbasso · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Sure. The problem is that religion in general, and Islam in particular, defend those retrograde practices today.

      Citation needed? Well, try this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OZ3s0BcSxs

      And while the immense majority of the sheeple defend that their religion is peaceful, they don't realize that they make the base for switching to a totalitarian theocracy, and after that there is no peaceful turning around. Only after the abuse of power in this new regimen they would realize that they were actually being ruled by men, not god(s). They bent too much, and now they feel the mighty cock of god's proxies up their arses.

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    46. Re:Apartheid by lucm · · Score: 1

      South Africa only has gold and diamonds, not oil. Also, South Africa doesn't have a state religion to hide behind. Any criticism of Saudi Arabia would be "anti-islamic" bigotry.

      South Africa does not need a state religion to hide behind, they have a Hero (Mandela), a man with a stature so formidable that his ex-wife has been hiding in his shadow to commit crimes.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    47. Re:Apartheid by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not so long years ago girls were getting married in the USA at age 12 or 13.

      Didn't Edgar Allen Poe marry his 13-year-old cousin?

      --
      No sig today...
    48. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A trade embargo on oil? Hard to believe that will ever happen.

    49. Re:Apartheid by no-body · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sorry but ALL religion is insidious and evil. It is a means of control for the unintelligent and mentally lazy.

      You may have a problem if you are born into one of "those" societies, conditioned from day one and then having to work off that imprint.

      Your statement is pretty arrogant, blaming laziness and stupidity as cause. There are people - smart and courageous - putting their life on the line in totalitarian societies.

      It's probably more beneficial to understand the pathological mechanisms causing the exploit by "leaders" and exposing it.

    50. Re:Apartheid by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would more classify it as the central component of religion—into which mythology and theology and laws can be plugged to create a full structured belief system—rather than a 'version' of it. It's the sense that there must be something greater out there, a result of human curiosity and imaginativeness untempered by the agnosticism of science.

      (In computing, we call this a security vulnerability.)

      That being said, spirituality doesn't make you go out and start wars or subjugate others. That takes someone with ambition. Ideally with a beard, narcissism, and/or early signs of schizophrenia (read: a Messiah complex or pathological liar claiming to have a Messiah complex.) In the absence of such god-kings, religions with destructive practices tend to limit themselves to the occasional virgin sacrifice. No one had to invent a religious motive to attack Carthage.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    51. Re:Apartheid by Maow · · Score: 1

      When South Africa did this (to black people, rather than women), under Apartheid, the civilised world rightly condemned it, and imposed trade sanctions.
      Where are the trade embargoes on Saudi Arabia? They're in contravention of the UN declaration of Human Rights.

      Because it goes against Political Correctness.
      [...]
      The only thing dumber than Political Correctness are the people who don't question it.

      No, it's because of the oil FFS.

      Those on the left tend to be criticized as being PC, yet they're the ones who push for women's rights too, so PC it ain't.

      The only thing dumber than PC is people who see it under every bed and in every closet. But I'm sorry for raining on your OT political rant, my bad, I guess I'm so un-PC.

    52. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I hate to break it to you, but the Christians during the Crusades were the technologically and culturally inferior group. Islamic philosophers were debating Aristotle and inventing things like chemistry, algebra, and hospitals. Christians didn't even know about the Greek philosophers, and when they found out it was because they translated them from Arabic. At which point the religious leaders denounced them and forbid the teaching of them.

      The Muslim world obviously went to shit, but don't pretend that the Christian world wasn't composed of mindless fanatics at many points in history. If the Crusades never happened causing the Muslim world to draw in on itself and become paranoid, the Renaissance probably would have occurred in Baghdad.

    53. Re:Apartheid by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because it goes against Political Correctness.

      I think it's fair to say that this specific situation has bugger all to to with "political correctness" in the sense you mean it.
      It's about oil, "stability in the middle east" (ie oil), an "ally to the west" (ie oil).

      It is not "political correctness". It is diplomacy in the worst sense of the word. The sense that allows countries to "smooth over" inconvenient realities and buddy up to the extent that dependency increases to the point becomes practically impossible to say "no". The "bleeding hearts" didn't get us here, the cold pragmatists did.

      Political expediency is the problem not political correctness. The solution? Frankly I don't see an easy one.

      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    54. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry but it was the Arabs who were doing that. Then the Muslim/Islam fanatics came along and burnt everything to the ground, not just in their own countries of origin buy around the world; hence the crusades, just as they continue to do today.

    55. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'll happen when they start finding and drilling for oil in the Arctic and Greenland -- and therefore don't need Saudi anymore.

    56. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Edgar Allan Poe also died more than 150 years ago. "Not so long ago?"

    57. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm

    58. Re:Apartheid by YourMomsRight · · Score: 2

      In accordance with whose Sharia law? There is no one Sharia law. Each sect in Islam has its own Sharia, sometime two or more. There is one agreed upon Sharia law for all Muslims. What the Saudi's are doing is unique to Saudi. You don't see this B.S at in other countries (you may find a nut or two). Please read a bit more about things, before you label and demonize them.

    59. Re:Apartheid by YourMomsRight · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ok, 80-200 years ago: "of the 120 or so active shooting wars happening today, Chirstian are involved in over 100 of them" There is nothing unique in Islam or Christianity that makes them war prone, In fact they are not. These are political/land wars. Where religion is used to motivate people.

    60. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't happen, and remember this is in accordance with sharia law too. Which is supposed to elevate women above western standards, or so flappy headed groups keep telling us.

      Up until about 100 years ago, it was. Most common law countries have amended their laws, though. But the fact remains the foundations of Islamic law are much friendlier to women than the foundations of common law.

    61. Re:Apartheid by YourMomsRight · · Score: 0

      Aisha's (his wife) age was not 6. The source of this has been contested and shown to be inaccurate. Link is posted below: Here it is again: http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm

    62. Re:Apartheid by YourMomsRight · · Score: 2

      Political correctness less, Oil more. It should be condemned, but not by blaming the religion. Research a bit, Saudi's version of Islam is made up to suite the ruling regime. Its rejected by most Muslim countries. Lookup Whahabi Islam (its the Westboro Baptist equal of Islam)

    63. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok Bengie, point taken. But....Mo was not some random goat humper. He is put up a the prophet of islam and seen as "al ansar al kamil uswa hasana" - The ideal man, a perfect example for all time.

      Puts a different slant on his pedophillia now doesn't it?

      Shaun

    64. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes and it's the Cubain contry than US imposed trade sanctions, a country with probably the most educated women in all americans continent.

    65. Re:Apartheid by sageres · · Score: 1

      And Jerry Lee Lewis!

    66. Re:Apartheid by sageres · · Score: 2

      Try boycotts of the Saudi Arabia. Besides oil, their biggest export and tourism attraction is the religion. Prevent 2 billion muslims from doing their sacred hadj in the name of women's rights, see a world war 3 unfold.

    67. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No it wasn't. If you haven't actually studied Islamic science I recommend you shut up now.

      Islamic science and religion were closely related. One of the reasons it was is because unlike Christian science, the natural world wasn't considered some separate entity from God. Muslims felt that studying the natural world was studying God's creation and thus giving them a better understanding of God. There are several hadiths that mention that searching for knowledge was a Muslim duty. Because of this, there was very little censorship of scientific ideas in Medieval Islam even when they contradicted dogma.

      The easiest way to describe the difference between Medieval Islam and Medieval Christianity is this: Christians were seeking to increase their faith despite what the natural world told them while Muslims were seeking to understand the natural world in order to better understand God.

    68. Re:Apartheid by smugfunt · · Score: 1

      To leave China, you need an exit visa.

      Not according to a Chinese co-worker of mine (in the UK). That was ten years ago, mind.

    69. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This thing you call "political correctness" is just your own misguided and inaccurate rendition of relativism.

    70. Re:Apartheid by Tagged_84 · · Score: 1
    71. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also find it most effective to place an insult in the first three words of my point.

    72. Re:Apartheid by Tagged_84 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, because a website like muslim.org isn't at all bias. Just look at their tagline: "presenting Islam as peaceful, tolerant, rational, inspiring"

    73. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but back then the average life expectancy was about 35. So if you didn't have kids young, you wouldn't be around to raise them for long.

    74. Re:Apartheid by Xarvh · · Score: 1

      *Of course* the doctrines of the Church were sold as path of peace.
      Or of war, according to the need of the context.
      Have you actually checked the documents of the period?

      Do you actually have any Muslim friend?
      They are nice, normal people who do not realize that they have ditched all the horrible prescriptions of their stupid religion, just as the overwhelming majority of Christians did.

      Religion is the art of believing whatever you want to believe, what is actually written on The Holy Book is irrelevant.

    75. Re:Apartheid by Xarvh · · Score: 1

      Nope.
      None gives a shit about Political Correctness.

      It's just that Saudia Arabia holds us by the nuts because of the oil.
      Plus, they are filthy rich and have a modern army.

    76. Re:Apartheid by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Didn't Edgar Allen Poe marry his 13-year-old cousin?

      Back then, America also still had slavery. Your point being?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    77. Re:Apartheid by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Really? The RCC sure did justify themselves for their actions back then as the crusades being a 'justified war' bringing 'the peace of Christ' to all those newly converted ones.

      You mention the Muslims being involved in 100/120 wars but the Christians are just as much involved in them and HAVE ALWAYS BEEN in all the great 20th century wars. Christian churches blessed and prayed for Hitler's troops and the genocide of the Jews was encouraged and hailed by all mainstream and even less mainstream churches.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    78. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry but ALL religion is insidious and evil. It is a means of control for the unintelligent and mentally lazy.

      The situation existing in the present with this religion is now the problem at this time. Although in agreement, qualifying disclaimers getting beat to death can get old.

    79. Re:Apartheid by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Religion is what allows civilization to not just progress through a social evolution, but to survive. Humanity needs religion as a whole, because our brains are wired that way.

      Meanwhile, back in reality, people are rightfully starting to worry about the combination of Atomic Age weaponry that modern science has given us and the and Bronze Age morality that the world's mainstream religions have saddled us with.

      Ever read the Bible? How about the Koran? Ever imagine going back in time and giving those guys nukes? How does your "civilization" look in that scenario?

    80. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      South Africa didn't supply the US with oil.

    81. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He died 163 years ago... Times have changed and we have changed with them... most of us have any way. As it was mentioned before, these countries are retrograde and stuck in a past, unwilling to change.

    82. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Arguably, the only reason that scientific thought flourished under Islam was the decentralized nature of the faith. In Christendom you had the Pope waving his golden sceptre and enforcing dogma at an empire-wide level. In Islam spiritual leadership comes from the local imam. If you were intellectually driven and didn't feel appreciated under one imam, you could always leave and find another. That option wasn't available to Christians.

    83. Re:Apartheid by sl149q · · Score: 2

      Orwell described the process in 1984, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink.

      You direct people away from what you are doing by simply relabeling it. The "institution of peace" instead of "institution of war" (Orwell's example was Ministry of Peace (war), Ministry of Love (torture), Ministry of Plenty (generally supplying barely enough to keep people from starving.)

    84. Re:Apartheid by sl149q · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Quite possibly true in the distant path. But demonstrably untrue since the Age of the Enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment) and the improvement in mankind's general condition from the accompanying industrial revolution.

    85. Re:Apartheid by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      The only idiot who has said Sharia law will elevate women above western standards is you.

      Better let most feminists know then, because they're the ones who say it. Along with a myriad of leftwing groups that support it based on the idea that any opposition is "racist" sorry but the only ones who support are the idiots, not me.

      I guess you haven't been paying attention to this for very long.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    86. Re:Apartheid by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is suppossed to. The problem is that men are in charge of the implementation and that's a common problem across the entire world. Regardless of the laws on the books, if the people interpreting them are not representative of the people they are applied to, the end result is going to be biased like health insurance paying for viagra but not birth control pills.

      Really? So I now have two people within a mere 40mins of each other, one saying it does. Another saying it doesn't. Odd. Oh, as for your idea that it does? I take it that you've read that good book, and the various legal documents surrounding sharia. Especially the parts where a women's testimony is worth less than a man's, where rape is the women's fault and so on.

      Don't be naive. It has nothing to do with "men who institute it." The entire system of sharia, is built around oppression, for the sake of oppression.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    87. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If oil embargos are so ineffective why are we always trying to push them against Iran and Syria?

    88. Re:Apartheid by nanter · · Score: 1

      Health insurance does not pay for Viagra unless it is used for pulmonary hypertension, a bonafide medical condition.

    89. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if we must link things to oil, maybe oil is exactly why Apartheid was condemned. South Africa at the time didn't produce oil, but its oil reserves were well known. Not long after the democratic elections and repeal of Apartheid laws it in fact started to produce oil. Maybe we just want people in place who are oil-friendly and our opinion of their practices changes accordingly.

    90. Re:Apartheid by VendettaMF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >> back then the average life expectancy was about 35. So if you didn't have kids young, you wouldn't be around to raise them for long.

      Slight side note there. The average life expectancy may have been 35, but remove all the infant deaths (those dying aged 0-2 years old) and the average bounces way up into the mid-60's, not so massively different to today's.

      --
      kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
    91. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how many are the US involved in?

    92. Re:Apartheid by camperdave · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sorry but ALL religion is insidious and evil. It is a means of control for the unintelligent and mentally lazy.

      That's why the bible says "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (Acts 17:11). It is noble *NOT* to be unintelligent, and mentally lazy. It is noble *to validate* what you are being taught. It is not RELIGION that is the problem. It is that people lack diligence and let themselves be controlled.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    93. Re:Apartheid by RuaisLampSilog · · Score: 1

      Where are your facts to say such a stupid statement?

      --
      We all knew this would happen. Alas, we did it anyway.
    94. Re:Apartheid by VendettaMF · · Score: 1

      In China right now.
      Chinese nationals require a visa to exit the country, unless willing to take the cargo container trip out of Wenzhou.
      This visa can be obtained by legitimate means only in rare circumstances.
      If you actually want to get it you need legitimate reasons and a moderate bribe (8 to 12 thousand yuan) or a major bribe (20 to 50 thousand yuan) and suitable connections.

      Us foreign types are thankfully able to leave at will.

      --
      kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
    95. Re:Apartheid by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      I strongly doubt it was ever considered 'normal'. The autonomic empathic response is the natural normal state of human social interaction. An adult raping a child is not 'normal' it is insane, it was always insane, it is crazy to claim an insane act as normal.

      I'll fix it for you, "You could get away with raping child, animals, slaves and, serfs", you could beat slaves and serfs to death for amusement if you were the psychopathic lord of the region. Just because you could get away with this does not make it normal. Reality is 'normal' was to eliminate those psychopaths before they could rape your children and get away with it.

      Barbaric was always barbaric, pay closer attention to history. In fact the only really big lies in history were those that painted barbaric acts as 'normal' and 'good', based upon who was committing the acts of barbarity and those lies that propaganda was created because everyone knew what was and was not a barbaric act.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    96. Re:Apartheid by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

      The problem is that men are in charge of the implementation and that's a common problem across the entire world.

      The problem is that Saudi Arabia is home to a particularly shitty and fundamentalist sect of Sunni Islam known as Wahhabism or Salafism.

      For example: the Taliban in Afghanistan aren't/weren't Wahhabis/Salafis, but they were educated in Pakistan, through Saudi funded schools pushing Wahhabi/Salafi interpretations of Islam.

      Much of the shit show in the Middle East can be tied one way or another to the virulent fundamentalism rooted in Saudi Arabia.
      /Except for Iran, which is a different branch of Islam, which is why all their Sunni neighbors hate them.
      //Iran is mostly the USA's fault for repeatedly overthrowing the government and pissing off the Iranians.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    97. Re:Apartheid by engun · · Score: 2

      The problem isn't that morality back in the day was different (i.e. more primitive). The problem is that, faithheads think that what's written in the book is absolute. So the example of Mohammed sleeping with a 9 year old, or the bible advocating slavery, genocide etc. are examples to prove that modern morality is far better than the obviously flawed "absolute" morality advocated in those books.

      That is why this Aisha story comes up so often.

    98. Re:Apartheid by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Sure, just like Islam is the "religion of peace" even though, of the 120 or so active shooting wars happening today, Muslims are involved in over 100 of them.

      So because Islam is correlated with wars, Islam must be causing the wars? Sounds reasonable.

      I'd argue that the real distinction that's important is secular vs theocracy. If a country or military is defined by theocracy, that's bad for peace. You can argue this or that brand of theocracy is better or worse, but that's bullshit to me. Religions are violent by nature, Islam is just the one that is more en vogue in areas of the world where people who are still mixing religion, military, and government. That Kony guy is Christian, and you mention the crusades, so lets not pretend other religions are more peaceful.

      At least during the Crusades and the Inquisition, nobody went around talking about how the Catholic Church was the "institution of peace".

      No, I'm pretty sure they declared they were doing God's work while they were raping and murdering. They may not have specifically said they were doing it for peace, but it was still hypocritical. Public relations was also less of a thing back in those days. It wasn't like the pope had reporters pressing him to issue a statement explaining why he was invading. He didn't have to come up with bullshit to keep the rubes from realizing the Church was full of warmongerers.

      It's like the farther back in time you go, the more sense the average person had.

      Ridiculous. Most of those places that are mistreating women, they weren't treating them particularly well in the past. There are examples like the Taliban where things did get much worse more recently, but we're not burning women for being witches anymore, most of the developed world realizes that evolution is how things happened, and the Church eventually admitted the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa. I'd say things are getting more rational, it's just much slower than it should be going.

    99. Re:Apartheid by Nyder · · Score: 1

      When South Africa did this (to black people, rather than women), under Apartheid, the civilised world rightly condemned it, and imposed trade sanctions.
      Where are the trade embargoes on Saudi Arabia? They're in contravention of the UN declaration of Human Rights.

      As long as we get Oil from Saudi Arabia we are going to ignore the bullshit they do. After all 9-11 was funded by the Saudi's and we left them alone.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    100. Re:Apartheid by Nyder · · Score: 2

      Religion is what allows civilization to not just progress through a social evolution, but to survive. Humanity needs religion as a whole, because our brains are wired that way.

      My brain isn't wired that way. I find religions offensive to the human spirit, and think they are what is holding society back.

      Religions are the excuse humans use for the unexplained because they are either too scared or too lazy to find the truth. It's easier to pretend that "magical" things are going to happen after you die, since they do NOT happen while you are alive.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    101. Re:Apartheid by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      please! You're trying to make sense with an idiot? And you think that'll work?

    102. Re:Apartheid by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Yep, and the prophet Muhammad is the perfect man, whose acts are a model for all to follow, for all eternity.

      So go ahead and marry a 6 years old girl, wait for her to be 9 or 10, and then you can have sex with her (his dear Aisha).

      Ahh, but she is a girl! That's where the Catholic priests got it wrong! To rape a 10 year old boy is wrong, but if it's a girl it's ok! Allahu akbar!

      Too bad hell is a fictitious place, these people really deserve it.

      Men have been marrying underage girls for most of history. Not saying it's right, but it is how it has always been. Only in the last 100 years or so has society started looking down on that, making laws against it.

      Right or wrong, it isn't unusual to find in history.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    103. Re:Apartheid by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      Wow! Just wondering where you get your news, and what blinders your journalists wear. Feminists should back off the burqa-bashing.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    104. Re:Apartheid by tbird81 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sorry but ALL religion is insidious and evil. It is a means of control for the unintelligent and mentally lazy.

      Completely true. But some religions are worse than others - and Islam is terrible.

    105. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But South Africa had precious metals and precious stones...

    106. Re:Apartheid by Jessified · · Score: 1

      Amen brother. Gotta love strawmen arguments.

      "Let's do away with political correctness and multiculturalism and all that shit because my tortured definition of it is so flawed."

    107. Re:Apartheid by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 3, Interesting

      More like a profound state of suggestible cluelessness. A design flaw, exploited by culture to hold society together when people were too stupid and unenlightened to do it on their own.

      You sound like the kind of person who is easily doomed to repeat history.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    108. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other interesting comparison is that, in South Africa, we had 'reforms' going back to the early eighties. Blacks were slowly allowed more freedoms (for some things!), Indians and 'coloureds' were allowed into parliament, non-whites could stay in at least some hotels, etc, etc. It all seemed like a nice plan for sensible integration. However, none of these changes addressed any of the real issues. And it took another decade before the Prime Minister was kicked out and the then-government started making real changes, leading to the elections in 1994, etc.

      Same thing is happening in Saudi Arabia. America's fat, lazy buddy that calls himself king, is seen as a reformer. But he isn't making any real changes. And he is making the small changes so slowly that he will be dead of really, really old age before anybody has to confront the real issues. Very convenient for him.

    109. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And America is involved in ALL of them. Go check if you don't believe me.

    110. Re:Apartheid by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      What is your point? We are the ones who made nukes and they have been used twice already. I'm not so sure we should be throwing rocks at the ancients on this one. They weren't idiots any more than anyone else is. You demonstrate what such a weapon can do, and they wouldn't have used it either. I suppose it is great and all that we have been able to hold off on using them, but don't take our weapons of mass destruction and assume they'd do something we wouldn't with them.

    111. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      control for the unintelligent and mentally lazy

      Like that's a bad thing.

    112. Re:Apartheid by blind+biker · · Score: 2

      The only idiot who has said Sharia law will elevate women above western standards is you.

      I assume the GP's statement was sarcastic; in fact he/she was just repeating the official stance of Islam.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    113. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My partner, who is a PRC national, says you're wrong.

    114. Re:Apartheid by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      To me, this crosses the line to enslavement.

      It's basically a huge nation sized prison.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    115. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woosh.

    116. Re:Apartheid by EdIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They weren't idiots any more than anyone else is. You demonstrate what such a weapon can do, and they wouldn't have used it either.

      They would've used them all the time. Just giving them the weapons, and showing them the immediate results, is not enough to deter future use.

      In order to stop they would need a complete understanding of the environmental impacts, advanced medicine, genetics, complex systems, etc.

      Even right now you have morons who can't figure out, or believe, how small the world actually is and how a single nuclear event can have widespread, long lasting consequences. Same people who believe the world is too large, complex, and that the Jesus would not allow it to happen.

      If Galileo had problems explaining the Earth revolved around the Sun, just how hard do you think it would be to really explain the consequences of such weapons to people who were wholly ruled by superstition?

    117. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOLWUT? It may well cause more harm then good, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be damn effective. Price of oil will quadruple in the rest of the world, but Saudi Arabia will come apart at the seams without oil money. It's not happening because the world isn't willing to pay the price, not because it wouldn't be effective. It damn well will be incredibly effective.

    118. Re:Apartheid by ganjadude · · Score: 1, Insightful

      yeah....so what the fuck happened???

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    119. Re:Apartheid by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Here's an article from 1895, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B01EEDC113AE533A25756C1A9669D94649ED7CF&scp=1&sq=%22age+of+consent%22+delaware&st=p click the PDF link for the full article.
      Note that it is women complaining about how low the age of consent is, especially in Delaware where it is 7 years of age. So as recently as a 117 years ago it was OK to have sex with a 7 year old in at least one State with it considered rape if she was under 7.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    120. Re:Apartheid by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      a 6 year old... is not a "woman"

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    121. Re:Apartheid by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      I cant draw a picture of their leader without worrying about all 2 billion of them tryng to kill me so....until they grow the fuck up, fuck them, they can all choke on a fat cock

      the crusades were no good, and all religions have had their time of shame, however in this day and age, there is no excuse.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    122. Re:Apartheid by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      no it is not.. its in Michigan

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    123. Re:Apartheid by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      no, the problem is that saudis have oil,. if they didnt, MOST places around the world would not give a fuck about them, and as such they would disappear into the ages. But until their oil runs out, or we get off oil, we are stuck dealing with savages

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    124. Re:Apartheid by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      and exactly how much crack have you smoked today??? last I checked the democrats tend to give the muslims the benefit of the doubt while the republicans are all like fuck them, where are the nukes hiding?

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    125. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A little thing called oil might have something to do with the lack of trade embargoes. Also remember that the USA had to beg Saudi Arabia to increase production when the decided to ban Iranian oil.

    126. Re:Apartheid by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      really?? this close to december thats the dumbest thing you heard???

      you didnt hear anyone say "i am voting for obama"???

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    127. Re:Apartheid by meglon · · Score: 1

      Last I checked it was the fascist, conservative republicans wanting to relegate women in the US to breeding chattel, and strip them of all their rights to make medical decisions for themselves. Are you too fucking stupid, or too fucking ideologically blind to see that happening? The Saudi government is an ultra right wing conservative theocracy, and evangelicals here in the states would love to install the exact same thing here.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    128. Re:Apartheid by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      In islam men and women are believed to be different. Not inferior or superior but different sets of strengths and weaknesses. The part about women's testimony being worth less than a man is only in specific cases, like those involving finances. In the west, you'll find plenty of belief that women are not as good at math as men as well, so it isn't like that is unique to islam. Sure, there are some places which have decided that means in all cases, but again that's men deciding how things are in their favor.

      Same thing with rape. The quran does not put the blame on the woman. The remedy is marriage, which is barbaric by modern standards and sure as hell seems like blaming the victim, but it is hardly unique to islam. I personally know an upper-middle-class catholic filipina who was forced to marry her rapist and bear his children -- it took her 15 years and a public skull-bashing on the street at his hand before the same priest finally granted her an annulment. That sort of thing is due to hardline, and frankly uneducated, interpretations by men were the welfare of the woman is secondary.

      As for sharia elevating women aboive western standards, it is empirically true because the west doesn't make an effort to codify that at all. Whether in practice it succeeds is another thing entirely. But that was my point - islam shares this problem with plenty of other cultures, like the machismo/marinisma duality of latin culture which was intended to protect women but frequently results in their oppression and the confucian deference to elders who too often use that for personal advantage.

      What I'm saying here is that you are naive. You clearly have not "read that good book, and the various legal documents surrounding sharia" either. But having married a girl from an average muslim family, I'm pretty sure I've got a much better handle on this. If I had to guess, I'd say everything you know comes from people with an agenda to denigate islam rather than from the people for whom it is no big deal.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    129. Re:Apartheid by tbird81 · · Score: 1

      Try boycotts of the Saudi Arabia. Besides oil, their biggest export and tourism attraction is the religion. Prevent 2 billion muslims from doing their sacred hadj in the name of women's rights, see a world war 3 unfold.

      Well, let them go there. Don't let them come back.

    130. Re:Apartheid by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Extremism is certainly a problem. But that's orthogonal to men deciding how to apply the rules to women. Both sets of problems are inherent to human nature and not unique to islam.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    131. Re:Apartheid by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      When South Africa did this (to black people, rather than women), under Apartheid, the civilised world rightly condemned it, and imposed trade sanctions. Where are the trade embargoes on Saudi Arabia? They're in contravention of the UN declaration of Human Rights.

      Because a lot of people who will condemn westerners for almost anything (you haven't got a black disabled transexual speaking at your Ruby conference, you must be a fascist), they put complete asshole behaviour of Muslims down to "religious freedom" or "ethnic diversity". Sure tag the women, abduct Hindu girls, murder those priests, its just the expression of your beliefs.

    132. Re:Apartheid by Full+Metal+Jackass · · Score: 1

      To be fair, it was "normal" back then for them to have sex that young. I'm sure 1300 years from now, certain "normal" things that we do today will be looked at as barbaric.

      Yeah, it's not like anyone's saying that Mohammad had morality all figured out and we should take him seriously today. Oh, wait...

    133. Re:Apartheid by jandersen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... Bronze Age morality that the world's mainstream religions have saddled us with

      Stop slandering the Bronze Age - ancient Greece, where democracy was invented, was a Bronze Age society. Oppressing and enslaving people for "moral" reasons is an invention of a more advanced civilisation; the Greeks had slaves, but their slaves could win their freedom, unlike in the modern versions.

      It is worth remembering also, that religion is constructed by people, and religious people wrote the stories in the holy books. It is wrong to say that religion makes people do things, whether they are good or bad. Good people do good things and bad people do bad things; and if they happen to be religious, then they will blame both on their religion, but it doesn't mean that it is true.

      There was a time when the Muslim civilisation was the greatest on the planet, a beacon of knowledge and tolerance, while the Christian world was in the deepest darkness; now it is the other way round. This is not because of religion, race or any of the other stupid non-explanations - it is simply because of wealth and power. Freedom, democracy, tolerance and so on tend to seem like luxury items when you can barely find enough food or water each day. Perhaps it would be helpful if we stopped going on about what people in developing ought to do in terms of freedom, and instead concentrated on making it possible, by fighting poverty and corruption.

    134. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, it was "normal" back then for them to have sex that young.

      Actually I read that it isn't normal or accepted now and never was normal or accepted to marry 6 year olds and have sex with them at age 9.
      Age 12-13? yes
      age 9? nonono.

      Also, the 12-13 year olds would normally be married/sold to boys/men not THAT old.

    135. Re:Apartheid by Buchenskjoll · · Score: 1

      Or even The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch...

      --
      -- Make America hate again!
    136. Re:Apartheid by TractorBarry · · Score: 2

      Indeed. Make up your own belief system and follow it for as long as convenient. When it no longer fits make up a new one. There's plenty of gods/rituals to choose from so find something that works for you. It's an infinite omniverse out there and it does not fit in the human mind.

      Religion should make you grateful for your existence, appreciative of other existences (from the low to the high) and should help you get your way through life. The minute you find yourself telling others how to live or what to believe in you should realise that you're wrong.

      "We place no reliance on virgin or pigeon. Our method is science. Our object religion".

      And 23 praises to Eris & "Bob" !

      --
      Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
    137. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A friend of mine works there and has assured me this is a great way to make sure all your speeding fines get paid, he had to pay about $2000 worth before coming home recently.

    138. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes they were idiots, your average 8 year old is more intelligent than a fully grown man from the bronze age.

    139. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's skip the formal philosophical proof. Your usage of "evil" is meaningless, and therefore by no means does anything you say about it have the least significance.

      If you wish to contend with this, demonstrate your definition of "evil" is not merely your random subjective sputterings, by objective connection to an objective metaphysics, with the derivation of what is "evil" and what is not precisely validated in its specifics by that metaphysical stance.

      Evolution within a Naturalism framework poses no possibility of this, to save you some time. Present your alternative.

    140. Re:Apartheid by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Sorry but ALL religion is insidious and evil. It is a means of control for the unintelligent and mentally lazy.

      The situation existing in the present with this religion is now the problem at this time. Although in agreement, qualifying disclaimers getting beat to death can get old.

      Yeah, just think of all time travellers! How would his statement affect someone headed to 2000 B.C.E!

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    141. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the fact that attacking Edgar Allen Poe is useless for the actual reason he's attacking religion on this point--to free up any questioning of his own personal sexual proclivities, for the benefit solely of himself, and as a side-benefit, hopefully to get laid by seeming "pro-women".

      Ask if he's ever donated a nickel to aid anyone in the situation he's wringing his hands over. It will tell you all you need to know--or rather it would, if he would actually give you an honest answer.

    142. Re:Apartheid by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The quran does not put the blame on the woman. The remedy is marriage, which is barbaric by modern standards and sure as hell seems like blaming the victim, but it is hardly unique to islam

      Not being unique to Islam doesn't make it not blaming the victim, which is what it is.

      As for sharia elevating women aboive western standards, it is empirically true because the west doesn't make an effort to codify that at all

      Uh no. That is so ass-backwards it would be funny if it weren't pathetic. The west has succeeded in fact in codifying equality for women in numerous cases. Not religious ones, though... secular. That is, law. And some law is slanted in favor of women today, e.g. sexual harassment law. Of course, that's only an attempt to counter pervasive oppression of women, but it's still the case.

      If I had to guess, I'd say everything you know comes from people with an agenda to denigate islam rather than from the people for whom it is no big deal.

      I have the same problems with Islam that I have with Christianity. I think both are a blight upon modern culture used to control the masses first, and any benefit to their lives is incidental.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    143. Re:Apartheid by Alex+Belits · · Score: 0

      We know what happens with Communism (hundred million dead give or take a few million)

      Not this bullshit again.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    144. Re:Apartheid by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      yeah....so what the fuck happened???

      Same thing that happened in China, they got caught up in fighting amongst themselves over bullshit and haven't invented anything since. Good thing, too, or else the world would have been homogenized under their flag by now. (Which? Yes.)

      Same thing would have happened to the Christians if it weren't for the Roman empire...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    145. Re:Apartheid by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It wasn't like the pope had reporters pressing him to issue a statement explaining why he was invading. He didn't have to come up with bullshit to keep the rubes from realizing the Church was full of warmongerers.

      Yes, yes he did. He had to keep his followers behind him while he's preaching love thy neighbor and do what I tell you from the altar and meanwhile there's men with swords claiming to do god's work (thou shalt kill!) not so very far away.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    146. Re:Apartheid by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      It is noble *NOT* to be unintelligent, and mentally lazy. It is noble *to validate* what you are being taught

      Maybe the Thessalonians were just smart enough to demand multiple sources before they bought a fantastic story. I don't buy anything that Paul said, especially since what he said conflicts with what everyone else said in practically every regard.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    147. Re:Apartheid by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but we need their oil. Oil is more important that women's rights, obviously.

      Try "We have opportunities to profit from their oil. Profit is the most important thing in the world, obviously." We don't need their oil. We have chosen a route that uses their oil, at least in part because it permits certain individuals to profit. I also enjoy the theory that we're using up their oil so they can't use it themselves in the future, but I think that's a dumb plan in every way so I hope it's not true.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    148. Re:Apartheid by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What is your point? We are the ones who made nukes and they have been used twice already.

      Congratulations, you have proven only that following the same old dogma is insufficient to guide us into the future. You think the people who decided to drop the bombs were thinking outside the box?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    149. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A more modern example then, would be the musician Bill Wyman from the Rolling Stones, who started 'dating' Mandy Smith when he was aged 50 and she was just 13.. by her own admission they started having sex when she was 14, which means 1984-5. Wikipedia says that she was raised as a Roman Catholic (and the relationship was approved by her mother), I don't know about Bill, or if the church approved the union.

    150. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They're in contravention of the UN declaration of Human Rights"

      a.k.a. "Some people got together and made some stuff up, as they pulled down big perks being part of an authoritative-sounding group".

      None of this matters until you can validate the "rights" by reference to something in reality that could make the subjective assertions of such a group of people objective, by reference to something objectively validating it in the nature of reality itself. For anything you propose is a "right", I'll say your assertion of the nature and scope of that "right" is inaccurate. Show me your rights-detector, so I can test propositions of what they are by pointing it at physical material reality--if that's your stance.

    151. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      South Africa looked at itself as a part of the western world. It shook their self image to have that world boycott them. Perhaps it could have a similar effect if the islamic countries boycotted Saudi Arabia, but, as sibling poster pointed out, that is not going to happen when they have the most holy site of Islam.

    152. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, I'm quite certain I know more than you about all religions, and all secular philosophical worldviews.

      So now what?

    153. Re:Apartheid by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Won't happen, and remember this is in accordance with sharia law too. Which is supposed to elevate women above western standards, or so flappy headed groups keep telling us.

      Well played sir!

      Rather than thinking about the question "Why no trade sanctions against Saudi Arabia" you've hijacked the thread into a load of islamophobic nonsense.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    154. Re:Apartheid by akeeneye · · Score: 1

      OT, but one need only walk through an old cemetery in New England (and in the Old no doubt) to observe how many people lived deep into geezerhood. It's not at all uncommon to see gravestones with something like (b1724 - d1810) etched on them. It initially struck me as counter-intuitive, after all, these people had far less of the "medical science" that would have saved them from dying from routing ailments and injuries. I speculate, but maybe, just maybe, the relative lack of food additives as well as limited industrial (and I'm not referring to city life here) and auto pollution lead to overall better health? Also, perhaps, a relative lack of mental stress caused by, among other things, the modern rat race of life and wage-slavery, helped the otherwise-healthy to achieve long lifespans?

      --
      The man who dies rich dies disgraced. -- Andrew Carnegie
    155. Re:Apartheid by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 0

      Not being unique to Islam doesn't make it not blaming the victim, which is what it is.

      In the original context, the idea was that a woman would not be able to marry unless she was a virgin. So the guy who took her virginity had to make restitution by marrying her. I guess I should have spelled this out, I keep forgetting how little knowledge people have of historical context. But as I said, that sort of result is due to hardline interpretations, there is nothing that says a modern sharia-based justice system must rule that way.

      The west has succeeded in fact in codifying equality for women in numerous cases.

      I didn't say equal. In fact, I explicitly said different. You are basically arguing that what I wrote is true.

      And some law is slanted in favor of women today, e.g. sexual harassment law.

      I think you would be hard pressed to find statutes that were slanted in favor of women. Specific rulings and the resultant case law, sure. But that's all about interpretation and sharia is just as much open to interpretation as any other form of law.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    156. Re:Apartheid by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      Successful troll is successful.

    157. Re:Apartheid by gtall · · Score: 3, Interesting

      More accurately, during WWII, Germany and Japan also had nuclear programs. The U.S. just managed to get there first. After the war, Russia go into the game, quickly followed by France and Britain.

      And the two nukes dropped on Japan were not dropped in a vacuum. After a grueling war in the Pacific, Japan was fully prepared for an invasion. Given the way Japanese soldiers fought to the death in Saipan, Guam, etc., the U.S. faced the prospect of creating another million deaths on the home islands as well as losing another 300,000-500,000 G.I.s invading Japan. And leaving an unbowed Japan after what they did in China and SE Asia and given their then culture, it would have guaranteed a new war when they re-armed. Presented with that, Truman decided to use the nukes in the hopes of getting a quick end. And it almost didn't happen. There was a palace coup that nearly succeeded, it seemed some in the Japanese military thought the Emperor would capitulate rather than continue to fight on.

    158. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ALL generalisations are wrong (except this one, but then again maybe not)

    159. Re:Apartheid by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Well if the Muslim world had not cut off the route from Europe to the holy land the crusades probably never would have happened. Remember early Islam was spread by the sword. Its a modern fiction that the Europeans started the conflict that lead to the Crusades.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    160. Re:Apartheid by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In the original context, the idea was that a woman would not be able to marry unless she was a virgin. So the guy who took her virginity had to make restitution by marrying her.

      That's not restitution. Restitution would be supporting her without marrying her. It's just slavery.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    161. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ideally with a beard, narcissism,

      Stallman? :-)

    162. Re:Apartheid by Geeky · · Score: 1

      I guess surviving childhood was hard, so those that did were genetically stronger and more likely to live a long life. These days, in the west, surviving childhood is easy, so allowing weaker adults who might not live as long.

      The stats thing mentioned by the GP is one of my pet peeves, and as he points out, life expectancy of those who reach adulthood hasn't changed all that much. Hell, didn't the bible even refer to "three score years and ten" as a reasonable age? That is, when it had got past the Old Testament nonsense of living for hundreds of years!

      --
      Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
    163. Re:Apartheid by Geeky · · Score: 1

      The marriages were often political, though, so it's not clear whether they were actually consummated.

      --
      Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
    164. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a 6 year old... is not a "woman"

      That's not for you to decide, that's for Mother Nature to determine. We humans are the only species which base adulthood on something other than just biological capability, so while your argument may be valid in terms of human philosophy, it's completely invalid in terms of reality.

    165. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does Obama have to do with December?

    166. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you rank by body count? Two nominally "christian" leaders, Bush and Blair managed to start one of biggest shit-fights in recent memory.

    167. Re:Apartheid by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      In islam men and women are believed to be different. Not inferior or superior but different sets of strengths and weaknesses.

      OK, so there are parts where men considered superior and parts where women are considered superior. So logically there are parts where women have to do what men say, and parts where men are bound to do what women say.

      Can you give an example of the latter?

      The part about women's testimony being worth less than a man is only in specific cases, like those involving finances.

      Yeah, and that's a clear statement of inferiority, not difference.

      In the west, you'll find plenty of belief that women are not as good at math as men as well,

      You're comparing the beliefs of some people to the laws of others. There is no law which states that. And there are very many people who do not believe it to be true. It's certainly not codified here anywhere and if you tried to hire people based on that you could be hauled off and sued.

      o it isn't like that is unique to islam.

      That's true: assholeishness is pervasice throughout the world and is therefore codified in all religions. That's why civilised countries do not base laws on religion.

      As for sharia elevating women aboive western standards, it is empirically true because the west doesn't make an effort to codify that at all.

      u mad bro?

      It does the opposite. Western law now very explicitly makes an effort to codify equality. Sharia law makes a very explicit effort to codify the inferiority of women.

      To argue a counter point you really have to provide an example of where sharia law codifies the superiority of women, rather than argue vague generalities about how other people elsewhere have done bad things too so sharia law isn't all that bad.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    168. Re:Apartheid by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

      It seems you've got your knickers in a twist about something you've completely made up.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    169. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not this bullshit again.

      Not some fucking loser who thinks Mao, Stalin, PolPot and all the rest of the Communist losers didn't murder hundreds of millions in the name of Communism.

    170. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet religion was the inspiration for some of the most celebrated works of art, and pieces of music the world has known.

      Everyone seems to forget that around here. When dealing with history, you have to take the good with the bad, because it's what actually happened.

    171. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people are so fervent in their malice for religion that it's a religion unto itself. This post is not intended to say that you are (or aren't) included in the "some people" in the first sentence. It is just to say that there are more than enough examples here at Slashdot.

      Science does not exist diametrically opposed to religion, and there are plenty of scientists that say as much.

    172. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only Slashdot would stand up for the subjugation of women and support past efforts to implement communism through mass murder.

    173. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Crusades had the muslims involved, though, and it was about recovering the cradle of civilization that was violently conquered by these pacifists. In fact, the Renaissance happened precisely because we recovered our classic documents from the hands of these barbarians, who hadn't touched them for centuries. Not all of them, though, the ones from the Library of Alexandria were destroyed and lost forever.

    174. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Islam is pretty good at what it does, it's the (mostly liberal) westerners that are being stupid by acting as if they are civilized, good, and tolerant. It only looks terrible to you because their values are in contraposition with yours. Communism, on the other hand, is objectively terrible because it ends destroying its own society, and reaches the opposite results of what it aims for.

    175. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      too much money coming to America from Saudi oil, won't happen.

    176. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientific thought and Islam are opposites. Scientific thought was only possible under Islam because it was done by previous scientific minds that were "converted by force" by Islam, once these people died of old age, no more scientific breakthroughs can be found in the conquered regions for the rest of the time they were occupied by muslims. Muslims were known to close universities and only allow studying the Q'Ran.

      On the other hand, Christians and Jesuits kept the culture in Europe until the crusades allowed europeans to recover all ancient texts from the lands conquered by the islamists, which allowed the Reinaissance to happen. The muslims literally just sit on the old texts without doing anything for centuries.

    177. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, those Jains are a real evil bunch.

    178. Re:Apartheid by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      If you really believe that then it is quite possible you posses the mentality of an eight year old bronze age child.

    179. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I kind of fell asleep after you said, "That's why the bible says".
      I have a thing for that: "That's why Harry Potter says..."

    180. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have strange problems. These religions, just like political ideologies, paint a type of society to strive for. Because societies are formed by many individuals, there must be some principles to follow by these individuals to reach the Utopia they want, and there are some principles that have to be avoided/outlawed because otherwise it's impossible to reach the goal. The western world has been made possible because is rooted in Christianism (USA is rooted in protestantism, though, which has advantages and disadvantages).

      So it's not that they are used to control the masses, it's that the masses want that type of society and thus follow these principles.

    181. Re:Apartheid by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 1

      oil

      --
      Sig. Sig. Sputnik
    182. Re:Apartheid by fonske · · Score: 1

      And then came Al-Ghazali also named Hoeddjat al-islaam.

    183. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah....so what the fuck happened???

      Very easy! The Muslim world was taken over my Islam! Seriously, the religion of "put your head in the sand except everything in the Quran"

    184. Re:Apartheid by joebagodonuts · · Score: 1
      and all to the benefit of *men*. It has to do about who is currently in power, and how to best maintain that arrangement. Gender plays an important role world-wide. The west has (unwillingly) made more advancement, mostly due to WWII. Once the women got out into the workforce, that genie wasn't going back into the bottle.

      Things like "tradition" and "religion" are more about maintaining control than they are about anything else.To ignore that observable social behavior is folly

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
    185. Re:Apartheid by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      If you married into a Muslim family, then they're exceptional, not average.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    186. Re:Apartheid by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      Unorganized religion can be just as dangerous. At least with organized religion you can apply pressure to the top and control or kill the beast. When people follow some scribble they call the immutable word of god, it's not so easy.

    187. Re:Apartheid by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      Correction. Society needed (past tense) religion. It's a vestigial organ that, if properly designed, shrinks and disappears entirely when society matures. Some religions, on the other hand, are more like cancerous tumors, spreading uncontrollably and ultimately killing the host. The further it spreads, the harder and less palatable it is to eradicate. Unfortunately that's also when it becomes necessary.

    188. Re:Apartheid by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      "Back then" isn't the problem. It's that it's still considered normal now, and always will be as long as Sharia exists.

      Care to take a guess at the age of consent in Saudi Arabia?

      SPOILER: any answer is wrong. There is no age of consent in Saudi Arabia.

      Here's an 8 year old being told that she can't divorce her 58 year old husband. That's from 2008, which I guess is technically "back then" for very strict definitions. You'll just love the reason why the case was rejected, by the way.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    189. Re:Apartheid by Rogerborg · · Score: 0

      Is 2008 "history"? 8 year old denied divorce from her 58 year old husband. Our friends and allies, give them a hand, folks.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    190. Re:Apartheid by Psyborgue · · Score: 2

      If poverty causes religion, how then do you explain the wealthy Saudis who flew themselves into the twin towers? Well to do engineers who plot to blow up time square? Military psychologists who shoot up bases? Take a look at the profiles of your average terrorist. If what you're saying is true, it doesn't add up. Don't let your political views blind you to reality. Read the Qur'an and the Sira and Sunnah. Then tell me what they do has nothing to do with religion. Tell me the reason women are stoned has nothing to do with the very clear commands to do so. Tell me the domestic violence against women has nothing to do withe Qur'an 4:34, and it's accepted interpretation in arabic (i.e. beat/strike/scourge is not a mistranslation).

    191. Re:Apartheid by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      It's a well-engineered virus is what it is. What the hell do you think the world would look like if Islam took over the world? You think it would be any better than communism. The only advantage, in the big picture, would be that it would wipe out all other religion and, when the Mahdi doesn't come back, would eventually die out, but in the process it would bring us back to the dark ages and erase thousands of years of our culture -- thrown on the bonfires of Shariah.

    192. Re:Apartheid by Psyborgue · · Score: 0

      Citation needed. Can you show me an example of when contradicting the Qur'an, or even reliable hadith was acceptable? To this day doctors in the middle east dance around their religion's dictates that, for example, semen originates from between the backbone and the ribs, or that camel urine is a beneficial medicine (Sahih Bukhari, Ablutions (Wudu'), Volume 1, Book 4, Number 234). There are even doctors in the middle east who peddle and practice this bullshit. Sorry but your assertion that Islam is compatible with science is total and utter fucking bullshit.

    193. Re:Apartheid by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      But at the same time this made Catholicism easier to harness. You pressure the top and the body follows. Decentralized religions are like a virus with no cure.

    194. Re:Apartheid by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Well that cat's out of the bag...

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    195. Re:Apartheid by Arker · · Score: 0

      Sorry but that is nothing but recycled propaganda. In fact the Japanese were already begging to surrender. The only thing blocking peace was that they wanted a negotiated agreement that the Emperor would be left in place ceremonially and the US demanded 'unconditional surrender.' Which was received after dropping two nukes. And the Emperor was never deposed anyway.

      The real reason to drop the bombs had nothing whatsoever to do with the prostrate and exhausted Empire of Japan. It was done to send a message to the Soviet Union.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    196. Re:Apartheid by MikeBabcock · · Score: 2

      Yawn, another idiotic comment from someone who's knowledge of religion came from a first year lecture by a crotchety old atheist.

      Not that you or anyone else is actually willing to consider this, but the major problem in religion is that humans are the actors, and tend toward being uncivil jerks to each other.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    197. Re:Apartheid by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      Depends on your interpretation of Islam. There are interpretations of Islam that view male homosexuality as permissible so long as the boy has no hair. Google Pashtun sexuality.

    198. Re:Apartheid by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      The source is Sahih (authentic) Bukhari which in Islam is considered authentic only unless contradicted by the Qur'an (and in this case, is not... and is actually supported in other ahadith). Here's a tip: if you wouldn't trust what a Scientologist has to say about their "religion" then why trust a Muslim source? If you want to find the truth, go to the religious texts themselves.

    199. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but there is still the limited age range for women to have any chance of a successful pregnancy. The most common cause of death for women in the past possibly would have been death during or as a result of pregnancy. A failed pregnancy could not only result in the death of a child but also a women of peak fertility.

    200. Re:Apartheid by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      Iran exports Shia terror as well. Just look at Hezbollah. Iran even supports Sunni Hamas (although they have tried disastrously to shift them towards Shia Islam). Perhaps in a way it's our fault, but back then we weren't thinking that far ahead and were more concerned with containing the soviets. Shit happens.

    201. Re:Apartheid by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      Absolutely agree, but neither party seems to be willing to make serious moves towards energy independence despite the fact it's the single greatest national security problem. Best look to Israel, and it's green startups to get the ball rolling. They have a very serious vested interested in cutting off the blood supply to their enemies, who also happen to be ours.

    202. Re:Apartheid by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      You're right, but he has a point also. In Pakistan there are horrific domestic violence figures (look em up), and yet nobody says much of anything. That is indeed because of political correctness.

    203. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And because women's rights still are not being taken seriously.

    204. Re:Apartheid by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Please define "repeatedly", in the context of the US overthrowing Iran's government.

    205. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please tell me how I can move to your black and white utopia world where everything's so easily quantifiable. I'm interested in immigrating.

    206. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, Prehistory to A.D. 1450 by David C. Lindberg

      Science in Medieval Islam: An Illustrated Introduction by Howard R. Turner

      Happy reading. And make sure you get Lindberg's 2nd edition book as it greatly expands on Islamic scientific history.

    207. Re:Apartheid by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      If you married into a Muslim family, then they're exceptional, not average.

      Shows how little you know about the real world.
      Muslims are no more tribal than any other religious group.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    208. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is wrong to say that religion makes people do things, whether they are good or bad

      Ridiculous. If that were true, religion would never have been invented.

    209. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."
      The claim is not the proof.
      Otherwise a Batman comic is proof for the existence of Batman.

    210. Re:Apartheid by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Some people are so fervent in their malice for religion that it's a religion unto itself

      Extremism in defense of reality is no vice.

      Science does not exist diametrically opposed to religion, and there are plenty of scientists that say as much.

      True, but that only means that being a scientist doesn't make you any less prone to delusion. Historically, there have been numerous scientists with various mental and moral failings. Scientists are still people, not so different from you and me.

    211. Re:Apartheid by Psyborgue · · Score: 0

      That's not what I asked for. Can you cite an actual example. For example: in such and such a year, and such and such a Muslim country, contradicting the Qur'an and Hadith was considered ok. If what you're saying is true and well supported, it shouldn't be hard to find an example.

    212. Re:Apartheid by cnflctd · · Score: 1

      Our oil is more important than their women. If an older version of world trade was in still in force (and it in fact is), we might decide differently.

      --
      I'm cool like a fool in a swimming p-p-pfft-pool
    213. Re:Apartheid by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1
      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    214. Re:Apartheid by ahabswhale · · Score: 0

      Explain to me how voting for Obama is worse than voting for a fucking religious nut who thinks we came from the planet Kolob. I await enlightenment!

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    215. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except if you read the commentaries, even Mohammed's followers were shocked that he took her from "among her dolls" There's a big difference between 13 and 6.

      Of course, as y'all are claiming to be atheists, you can't really object. There is no morality or right/wrong except what you get away with. It's all just cultural residues from how you were raised. There is no genetic or practical advantage to it and if you really are, you should stop pretending otherwise. The only rational form of behavior is a libertine legalism... if you can do it and not get arrested, and it makes you feel good, go for it.

    216. Re:Apartheid by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I also enjoy the theory that we're using up their oil so they can't use it themselves in the future, but I think that's a dumb plan in every way so I hope it's not true.

      That's so stupid that I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    217. Re:Apartheid by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      The way women are treated in that part of the world is no secret and has been widely reported. 60 Minutes did a segment on the situation in Saudi Arabia and if that's not mainstream, I don't know what is. I also don't buy this whole "nothing is being done about it argument". For example, we have done a lot of work to setup and protect schools that girls can go to.

      To the extent that you could argue that not enough is done, I would say the issue is that not enough is being done, I would say that it has more to do with the fact that most westerners think people over there are a bunch of assbackwards morons and that it's basically a hopeless situation. Same deal with Africa. Political correctness has nothing to do with it.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    218. Re:Apartheid by aliquis · · Score: 1

      A former prime minister of Sweden said that those who are in debt aren't free.

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/15/saudi-cenbank-idUSCENBANKSA20111215
      http://www.majalla.com/eng/2011/09/article55226132
      "the Saudi stakes in the US economy could hardly be higher: more than half of Saudi overseas assets are held in the US, the Saudi riyal is pegged to the dollar, and the US is responsible for 22 percent of global oil consumption, making US demand the single most important driver of oil prices."

      "The Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency (SAMA) currently holds about $500 billion worth of overseas assets, of which some $360 billion are held in foreign securities. The majority of the latter are US treasury bills. Banks in Saudi Arabia also have considerable holdings of US treasuries, and private Saudi business families hold large portfolio investments in the US. With the decline of the dollar relative to other major currencies since 2002, these assets have lost international purchasing power. But most of that decline happened before the international economic crisis of 2008-2009â"the US recession and the recent downgrade have hardly affected the value of the dollar."

      I don't know. But maybe Saudi Arabia oil and money got something to do with it?

      Now if this was Iran, oh the horrors! Or Iraq a few years ago, but not a few decennias ago, then it would be just fine ;D

    219. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit, I just read your posting history. You have some seriously bigoted and racist views. Some of your vile quotes:

      It's a well-engineered virus is what it is. What the hell do you think the world would look like if Islam took over the world?

      Some religions, on the other hand, are more like cancerous tumors, spreading uncontrollably and ultimately killing the host. The further it spreads, the harder and less palatable it is to eradicate.

      I would have no problem whatsoever profiling Muslims, given the percentage of terrorist actions committed by them

      The only difference between Islam and NAZIsm is about 1300 years

      And the best one:

      If, on the other hand, religion has rotted out your brain, then you're a potential danger and must be removed from society, preferably in a body-bag. As far as i'm concerned, prison only allows the disease to spread.

      Yes, this asshole is recommending the genocide of Muslims by saying that Islam that needs to be eradicated (better now than later) because it is nothing more than a virus or a tumor and that the followers need to be removed in body bags.

      Just to note, I only looked back in the last 2 weeks. I wonder what other gems people could find if they searched longer.

    220. Re:Apartheid by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      You can spell the reason it won't happen in three lettters: O-I-L.

    221. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More than religion, Islam is a system of government. And the world needs to understand that Islamic rule can lie, cheat, steal and kill to promote the Islamic system of government until it governs the whole world.

    222. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Location: Scientific centers of medieval Islam, including Baghdad
      Time: 800 CE to 1200 CE
      Citations are already provided in previous post.

      I don't know what else to say. I read books. Science was tolerated and everything that scientists found was then further backwards 'proved' to already be in the Koran. I can tell you don't like this because it doesn't fit within your bigoted worldview. Too bad. Try not to cry while resolving these facts.

    223. Re:Apartheid by Reziac · · Score: 1

      According to some folks (I don't have a reference immediately to hand) the medieval Arab world more or less stole its knowledge, rather than inventing it, so the notion that they were necessarily more cultured/educated for their time may be a bit shaky...

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    224. Re:Apartheid by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Sorry but ALL religion is insidious and evil. It is a means of control for the unintelligent and mentally lazy.

      that could be said of almost ANY organized group, that it is a means of control

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    225. Re:Apartheid by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      The minute you find yourself telling others how to live or what to believe in you should realise that you're wrong.

      Like political parties? Or.... pretty much any organized group, tries to tell other people how to live? Every group has an agenda, and encourages their members to follow that agenda

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    226. Re:Apartheid by thatpythonguy · · Score: 1

      I'm sick and tired of hearing these ignorant generalizations. Surely /. readership is composed of many geeks who get offended if you criticize their text editor, but can't they for once just pick up a book that has nothing to do with computers or Star Trek, so they become nuansed enough to not generalize the actions of some people in Saudi Arabia (yes, not all Saudis agree with their leaders actions), a couple of millions even, to the billion others who don't take that line and don't consider it a part of "sharia law"? When I lived in Iraq, women were fully involved in society and didn't suffer from these draconian rules. Of course, that was before the born-again-Christian leaders of the US and other "free" western nations destroyed it. In short, stop the hypocrisy, Saudi Arabia's leadership deserves our criticism. But if you're gonna make statement such as "Islam is terrible", you would have a better chance explaining your bigotry if you were to say "Christianity is terrible" or "the West is terrible" with which I'd take offense as much. It's not Islam that is terrible; It's this line of thinking no matter what religion or non-religion its supporters happens to profess.

    227. Re:Apartheid by kenorland · · Score: 1

      Your statement is pretty arrogant, blaming laziness and stupidity as cause. There are people - smart and courageous - putting their life on the line in totalitarian societies.

      As opposed to "we have the only truth, and anybody who doesn't believe what we believe is going to burn in hell"? That's what both Christianity and Islam teach, and that is what these "smart and courageous" people you speak of believe.

    228. Re:Apartheid by kenorland · · Score: 1

      Completely true. But some religions are worse than others - and Islam is terrible.

      It's no more terrible than Christianity was a few centuries ago. Christian Europe had public executions, pillories, torture, informants, fatwas, and theocracy. It took centuries of bloody wars to stop the reign of terror by Christian churches. For example, the Catholic church was opposed to human rights and democracy until the mid-20th century, when they finally were forced to change their tune, and even then they continued to support dictators for decades.

    229. Re:Apartheid by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      You forget who has the oil my friend, and brings to the forefront the single most important rule on this planet,....
      who has the gold, makes the rules.

      sadly...

    230. Re:Apartheid by kenorland · · Score: 1

      The easiest way to describe the difference between Medieval Islam and Medieval Christianity is this: Christians were seeking to increase their faith despite what the natural world told them while Muslims were seeking to understand the natural world in order to better understand God.

      That's nonsense. Both Christians and Muslims started out believing that understanding the natural world would help them understand and glorify God.

      But science under Christianity eventually advanced to the point where that view wasn't tenable anymore. In addition, deism and other deviations from dogma became tolerated in Christianity. It was both the advancement of science and the tolerance of different religious views that changed the relationship between Christianity and science in the West.

      Islamic science just never evolved that far, and to this day takes place mostly in nations that are intolerant of deviations from Islamic beliefs.

    231. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Edgar Allan Poe married Jerry Lewis? Scary!

    232. Re:Apartheid by kenorland · · Score: 1

      For practical purposes, it doesn't matter what the original texts say, it matters what the followers of the religion believe.

    233. Re:Apartheid by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      OK, so there are parts where men considered superior and parts where women are considered superior.

      Well, off the top of my head it is basically that men are considered to be dogs. I mean that in the modern slang sense. The whole bit about women dressing modestly and not being alone in the company of unrelated men is about the belief that men are fundamentally incapable of controlling their sexual urges. Because men have been deciding on the interpretation of things, the result has been that the more regressive the society the more men have used their position of power to push that on to women. For example the idea was originally that men had a duty to accompany the women in their family for their protection, but in regressive and patriarchal places like Saudi that was turned into women requiring permission from a man in their family. Tragically, pre-russian invasion Afghanistan was an example of the opposite where islamic principles had been interpreted to put much of the responsibility for being a dog on the dog, probably even more so than the practical reality of rape prosecutions in the US at the time.

      That's true: assholeishness is pervasice throughout the world and is therefore codified in all religions. That's why civilised countries do not base laws on religion.

      Religion does not have a monopoy on being an asshole, nor is there anything that fundamentally requires religion to codify asshole beliefs. No matter the system, it all boils down to the people doing the interpretation. There is plenty of scripture in all the major religiions that is anti-asshole. If the people interpreting the law want to be just and fair they can focus on those parts just as judges in secular systems frequently choose between being an asshole on technical grounds rather than actually judging in the spirit of fairness.

      Western law now very explicitly makes an effort to codify equality.

      How very western of you to read "elevate women above western standards" to mean the western ideal of equality - despite quoting the very first sentence I wrote about islam believing men and women to be different.

      I'm not saying that a sharia-based system can't or shouldn't result in effective equality, I'm saying that to judge it based on the results in socially regressive third-world, war-torn dictatorships is putting the cart before the horse. When a deeply religious and regressive country like Pakistan can beat out most of the western world to elect a female leader it should be obvious that there is a lot more to it than the over-simplfied stereotypes that make up most of the public discourse here in the west.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    234. Re:Apartheid by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 0

      When the role of women in society is to bear and care for children, forcing a woman into spinster-hood is not restitution, even if you pay her way. You are looking at history through a modern lens. Priorities have changed, but that doesn't mean you can pick and choose which parts of the historical context to ignore. Well you can, but it doesn't serve the truth to do it.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    235. Re:Apartheid by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Things like "tradition" and "religion" are more about maintaining control than they are about anything else.To ignore that observable social behavior is folly

      When I was 18 I would have been right there with you. I would also have said things like government is corruptible so the best thing to do is get rid of all government. Somewhere along the line I learned about nuance -- that black-and-white thinking is rarely a good model for how the world actually works.

      With that, I will say that you are absolutely wrong. Tradition and religion are systems for organizing and keeping the continuity of a society and that the vast majority of the time they are useful tools to that end. But nothing is perfect and there will always be people looklng to take advantage of a system to further their own goals. That's going to happen in any system we use to organize civilization, it is inevitable, it is part of the human condition. The trick is to make sure we don't let the system, whatever its basis, calcify in such a way that it prevents us from recognizing and correcting those kinds of situations.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    236. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you really believe that females are totally inferior to males and are the property of males then this policy makes perfect sense. Why would they be expected to act differently, They are not going to listen to us ignorant apostates. Their God hates you for your liberal attitudes. Saudi Arabia should be regarded as not being part of civilized society and treated accordingly. That means not trading with it in any way, and giving it no voice in international forums.

      I don't think that this is really about religion because these are not the teachings of Islam. Rather, it is about how to run a totalitarian monarchy in the modern world. This is an extremely difficult task and much of the implementation needs to be done at the borders. Religion is the most powerful tool for getting the masses to abandon logic, fairness and reality. There is no other way that these Saudi assholes could retain power.

    237. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saudi Arabia is one of the richest countries in the world.

      You are also wrong about the Greeks and Bronze age morality in general.

      Even when Muslim art, architecture, mathematics, etc in certain places was the best in the world they still treated their women like shit.

    238. Re:Apartheid by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      When the role of women in society is to bear and care for children

      When women are being assigned a role, they're not being offered restitution.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    239. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, you are talking about religion. We were discussing spirituality. Try to keep up with your own conversations.

    240. Re:Apartheid by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      When women are being assigned a role, they're not being offered restitution.

      You seem to be more interested in random misplaced snark than in seeking truth, so have fun with that.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    241. Re:Apartheid by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You seem to be more interested in random misplaced snark than in seeking truth, so have fun with that.

      You seem to be more interested in making excuses for the actions of the past than in seeking truth, so have fun with that.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    242. Re:Apartheid by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Stalin, according to all available data, is responsible for, at most, two million dead -- bad but entirely within the range of typical leader in so-called "free" world. Massively inflated numbers come from works of fiction (Solzhenitsyn) and politicized interpretation of massive natural disaster that Communists were unable to mitigate (Robert Conquest). None of those works are based on any actual sources, and anyone who takes those as facts is an idiot.

      Mao's idiotic actions have very little to do with him being Communist, and more in line with the rest of recent Chinese history -- again, mostly influenced by war of aggression perpetrated by "enlightened" capitalist countries.

      Pol Pot was not in a Communist in the first place -- at best he knew some Communists early in his life.

      Of course, your friendly propaganda workers don't tell you that -- their goal is to completely cut off all possibilities of any social progress anywhere, and that requires besmirching everything that was responsible for it over the last century and a half.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    243. Re:Apartheid by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      no, the problem is that saudis have oil

      The problem is both of those things. They trade that oil for money, and the money they then use to build madrassah teaching Wahhabism all over the world, converting Muslim youth from traditionalist (and generally more tolerant / laid back) forms of Islam to intolerant and aggressive Salafi fundamentalism.

      So bear this in mind - every time you fuel up your car, that'll pay for that many hours of teaching that Allahu Akbar, and that unbelievers should have their heads cut off. I don't pretend to have a solution to this problem, but recognizing it as an acute problem is the first step towards finding one.

    244. Re:Apartheid by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Iran exports Shia terror as well. Just look at Hezbollah. Iran even supports Sunni Hamas (although they have tried disastrously to shift them towards Shia Islam).

      Iran supports Shia (and some Sunni) terror groups mainly as a tool in its quest for regional domination in a region filled by Sunni Arab states - they don't really aspire to be a world superpower, or to create a Caliphate, at least not in the foreseeable future. Similar to the numerous proxy wars of Cold War, where both US and Soviets supported various organizations that used means that would be unambiguously described as terrorist today.

      So Iranians are much more like Soviets in that way - they do have their own repressive ideology, and it's not all that nice, but the ruling class doesn't treat it as some kind of "death or glory" manifest destiny, and they can be reasoned with. It's quite different from Salafi fanatics, who literally just want to see the world burn.

      Perhaps in a way it's our fault, but back then we weren't thinking that far ahead and were more concerned with containing the soviets. Shit happens.

      Leaving the past be is well and good, but only provided that its mistakes are recognized, and its lessons are learned. But when CIA brass hangs this painting in their headquarters in 2008, all while supplying AA missiles to Islamist rebels in Libya, and now talk of doing the same in Syria, well - there's serious doubt about that. I can only shake my head in disbelief and go "tsk tsk, when will you guys learn?".

    245. Re:Apartheid by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      They aren't. The question remains, why is Taliban the sworn enemy of the United States, while Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are "allies"?

    246. Re:Apartheid by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Understanding the past has nothing to do with making excuses and everything to do with seeking truth.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    247. Re:Apartheid by NewYork · · Score: 1

      Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible
      https://sueliz1.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/catholic-church-no-longer-swears-by-truth-of-the-bible/

      I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran should also be amended accordingly.

    248. Re:Apartheid by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      Spirituality is the vulnerability and religion is the malware that exploits it. I've been pretty consistent.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    249. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Read up on your "facts",

    250. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, just like Islam is the "religion of peace" even though, of the 120 or so active shooting wars happening today, Muslims are involved in over 100 of them.

      You are projecting modern, 21st century christian ideals on them and then find them wanting. This is wrong. Nowhere does 'Islam' claim to be a religion of peace. Such a claim can be made of Buddhism, and of the New Testament, which makes Christians and Buddhists hypocrites every time they're not peaceful. Muslims terrorists are not hypocrites, at least not when it comes to the concept of peace. Violence to further the cause of Islam is explicitly allowed in their religion.

    251. Re:Apartheid by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      Good people do good things and bad people do bad things; and if they happen to be religious, then they will blame both on their religion, but it doesn't mean that it is true.

      With or without [religion] you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

      -Steven Weinberg

    252. Re:Apartheid by koxkoxkox · · Score: 1

      That's not true, except maybe for some government officials and other activities "involving the national security" (which can be pretty vast and arbitrary in China). Regular citizens do not need this exit visa and can leave the country whenever they want (it is the entry visa to any other country which can be hard to get).

    253. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supposedly, the outlawing of "Itjihad," Islam's reformist movement.
      Kind of similar to the Chinese naval lobotomy.

    254. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut the fuck up, you brain damaged, socialist tool. The muslim countries are amongst the richest countries in the world, due to all their oil.

      Why don't you try comparing Mexico with Saudi Arabia some day, when you have at least two neurons firing.

    255. Re:Apartheid by Schmorgluck · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, like Hamas, Hezbollah is Sunni, not Shia.

      --
      There's nothing like $HOME
    256. Re:Apartheid by Psyborgue · · Score: 0

      It's not surprising since you lie about tolerance of science, you would also lie about my posts, quoting stuff out of context to completely change, and in some cases invert meaning. I won't bother to explain away all of what I wrote as that would be a waste of my time and others are free to read my words in context. I'll just explain the third, about profiling as it's an easy one. If you quoted the following sentence it completely changes the meaning. I wrote: "The problem is you can't tell a Muslim by looking at one and the ones likely to blow shit up are not going to show it if there is any such profiling system in place." In other words I was speaking against profiling because it's ineffective.

      You can call me racist or whatever but the fact is Islam is not a race, and I made that very clear, even going so far as to correct others when they conflate the two. I'm not a fan of religion. I don't deny that. That doesn't make me a racist any more than judging people based on what they claim to believe or makes me a bigot. Religion is a choice. I see no problem whatsoever judging people based on the choices they make and they ideologies they voluntarily and openly claim to follow.

    257. Re:Apartheid by Psyborgue · · Score: 0

      I asked for a specific example. You did not provide one. Give me an example of a contradiction that was tolerated, not some broad "sometime in this very broad period of time in this very large location". If such examples exist, if such specific contradictions exist, then it should be easy. For example: in such and such a year, such and such a scientist made such and such a discovery that contradicted such and such a passage in the Qur'an and was not persecuted for it. If you're telling the truth, it shouldn't be hard, but it's not the truth, now is it?

    258. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats a matter of opinions...when the crusades were happening...Islamist at the same time were doing the same to Indian subcontinent...Historians somehow never make the connections....things like chemistry, algebra, hospitals, enslaved men & women were being imported eastern Asia... things like the so called, "Arabic numerals", were taken from India and passed onto Europe as Arabic numbers... Although not denying the great minds that were present in Arabia, I think undue credit is given, maybe because somehow Europeans feel guilty for their mindless crusades and are saying oh well, lets just say we attacked peaceful people and apologize.
      Problem is history is written/read by local perspective, and outsiders typically undoubted have different viewpoint. On being borderline flame-bait, I could possibly say the reason why Europe didn't become an Islamic continent is because they were proactive and had crusades and meanwhile sub-Indian continent didn't have crusades and look what happened there.

    259. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When South Africa did this (to black people, rather than women), under Apartheid, the civilised world rightly condemned it, and imposed trade sanctions.
      Where are the trade embargoes on Saudi Arabia? They're in contravention of the UN declaration of Human Rights.

      I'm unaware of this please explain, I am aware that it was very difficult for black South Africans to get passports during the apartheid era.

    260. Re:Apartheid by Ch_Omega · · Score: 1

      Ok, 80-200 years ago: "of the 120 or so active shooting wars happening today, Chirstian are involved in over 100 of them" There is nothing unique in Islam or Christianity that makes them war prone(...)

      Please read Surah 9:5 and 9:29 in the Quran, and tell me again that there is nothing in Islam that makes it war prone.

    261. Re:Apartheid by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      Super, and what ancient super weapon is the ark of the covenant? Or the spear of Zeus?

      Or does just that one religion have the answer, because it's the One True One? :/

    262. Re:Apartheid by Ch_Omega · · Score: 1

      For practical purposes, it doesn't matter what the original texts say, it matters what the followers of the religion believe.

      Exactly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OZ3s0BcSxs

    263. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Commenting on your (Arker) comment: Sorry but that is nothing but *cherry-picked, revisionist* propaganda.
      ftfy

    264. Re:Apartheid by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Was just pointing out an example.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    265. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true exactly, Catholics had a pope, the rest didn't have one, and your spiritual leadership was from your local priest. Catholicism != Christianity.

    266. Re:Apartheid by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      a 9 year old can be a woman, I have not seen any 6 year olds who can have babies (my definition of a woman in this case - being able to have a baby) so while My argument is correct in philosophy AND in science

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    267. Re:Apartheid by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      I agree with you there, both sides are too much in their ways, The republicans not wanting to let go of oik, the democrats wanting to raise the price of oil to match the already too high price of solar. We could tell them to go pound sand (pun intended) and get our oil from the north and south american continents and not need the middle east oil today, but sadly it wont happen

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    268. Re:Apartheid by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      hahaha oh man and no one modded you troll yet?? so sad

      leave the hyperbole at the door, not 1 republican wants to see anything you claim happen, and the fact that you believe it, just means the dems are doing a good job with their propaganda.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    269. Re:Apartheid by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      because what someone believes != what they do, I dont care if someone were to say "you know, that hitler guy, wasnt so bad" IF he made the lives of a majority of americans better. Actions are what matter, and obamas actions have been pitiful. Hell his admin just threw one of our best generals, and future CIA director under the bus to save his ass, That says all i need to know

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    270. Re:Apartheid by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      Uh yeah, but we don't have to fight poverty in most of the Islamic nations - they have lots of oil money. We do have to fight corruption in those nations, but most, not all, but most of their corruption is bound up in their religion.

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    271. Re:Apartheid by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      *raises hand and waves it vigoursly* I know, I know!! Breeder reactors!! Right?

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    272. Re:Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or prostate exams but not pap exams. Those with penis' still rule the world

    273. Re:Apartheid by jandersen · · Score: 1

      I have two objections to what you say. One - I don't think poverty causes religion, and I don't see how you can that into my words. And two: I didn't religion "has nothing to do with it", I said, religion is not why some people are evil.

      Religion may be part of what you are, but good and evil is about the choices you make. You can choose to do good even if you worship Cthulhu, and you can choose to do evil even if you folow a religion based on universal love. Religion is only the varnish you use to gloss over your choices. You beat up your girlfriend? The Bible tells you that it is OK. you rape a girl and she is the one that is executed for it? I can find the justification for that right there, in the Bible too.

      Holy scriptures were written by people according to what kind of people the authors were, and more importantly, they are used by religious people now according to their needs or whims. Religion doesn't make you do anything, it only serves as a justification after the deed, and your deeds come from your own, personal choices. And if there really is a judgement day, then you will be judged accordingly; that should make you think, if you really do believe in you God.

  3. Backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a fucking backwards culture, but they have oil so it's cool.

  4. We need to frack by Snotnose · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We need to get our fracking industry going full bore, convert all semi's to use it, and get to where we import 0% oil from anywhere. Let China and Russia keep the straights of Hormuz clear. Let the Saudies fall back into the decrepit 3rd world pit it deserves to be.
     

    1. Re:We need to frack by camperdave · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We need to get our fracking industry going full bore, convert all semi's to use it, and get to where we import 0% oil from anywhere. Let China and Russia keep the straights of Hormuz clear. Let the Saudies fall back into the decrepit 3rd world pit it deserves to be.

      No... We need to get our bio-diesel industry going full bore, convert all vehicles to use it, and get to where we import 0% oil from anywhere. Fracking is simply the equivalent to swirling the straw around the bottom of the cup, trying to suck up the last dribbles of milkshake. If you have to frack, the well is dry.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:We need to frack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So your response to having an addiction to oil is to cause a massive amount of damage to your country? Wouldn't finding alternative fuel sources be a better idea? If every home was using solar panels and cars were all electric based from Nuclear stations oil wouldn't be a problem any more. But hey if you want to cause Earthquakes and poison water supplies by using unsafe technology go ahead, just don't cry to the rest of the world when your home can no longer support the weight of your own feet.

    3. Re:We need to frack by Snotnose · · Score: 1

      No, we need to invest in something that we KNOW works and is relatively cheap and painless. When we import 0 barrels of oil then we can work on stuff like bio-diesel and solar.

    4. Re:We need to frack by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      But the other part is that Europe needs their oil more than the US does. Europe doesn't have the muscle to "keep the peace" and ensure a stable supply. And 60 billion dollar arms deals aren't exactly chump change either.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:We need to frack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Dear Snotnose,

      Us Canuckstanians import much blak crud to you, please not to take away our main export.

      Sinsirly

      Hockey Hooligan #64527

    6. Re:We need to frack by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      No... We need to get our bio-diesel industry going full bore, convert all vehicles to use it, and get to where we import 0% oil from anywhere.

      And in the process allocate more arable land and fresh water for non-human consumption. You may not have noticed but fresh water is already starting to become a scarce commodity in the US.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    7. Re:We need to frack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not really, it's just not conveniently located at all the right places.

      But give me 10 nuclear power plants and I can make all the fresh water you want.

    8. Re:We need to frack by Nostromo21 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We KNOW wind, solar, wave & geothermal work. We know a number of alternate bio-fuels work. We know natural gas works. We know hydrogen & electrical power sources work, the ultimate power source notwithstanding. We know nuclear fission reactors work, are relatively safe (I don't want to argue the point) & produce far less pollution & environmental damage per Gigawatt than fossil fuels. We know that nuclear fusion works, we just haven't invested seriously enough into it to make it practical, which we could have done 20-25 years ago. We know a number of other fuel sources & methods that could work, if adapted to varying degrees.

      However, we also know that oil works far, far more easily & cheaply than any of those right now & into the foreseeable future & is far more profitable, both in a monetary and geo-political sense. Not to mention the very deep pockets half the world's politicians & corporate heads have that touches on the oil industry in one way or another. It would perhaps be easier to get rid of electricity & copper wire as the main delivery method that powers all our devices, than oil as a primary fuel source right now. And that's saying something...

    9. Re:We need to frack by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Not really, it's just not conveniently located at all the right places.

      But give me 10 nuclear power plants and I can make all the fresh water you want.

      Which will be not conveniently located in all the right places.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    10. Re:We need to frack by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      Let the Saudies fall back into the decrepit 3rd world pit it deserves to be

      Because this would absolutely, definitely lead to a better life for Saudi females.

    11. Re:We need to frack by vux984 · · Score: 1

      . Fracking is simply the equivalent to swirling the straw around the bottom of the cup, trying to suck up the last dribbles of milkshake. If you have to frack, the well is dry.

      Its more like easting the last buffalo, picking at the bones, worrying about starving, and then realizing you can eat insects.

      Fracking is eating the insects. You might think your scraping the bottom of the barrel, but in truth you've just opened a MUCH bigger barrel. There is more biomass in insects than there ever was in buffalo... even before you started eating them.

    12. Re:We need to frack by lucm · · Score: 1

      >>>> We need to get our fracking industry going full bore
      >>> No... We need to get our bio-diesel industry going full bore
      >> No, we need to invest in something that we KNOW works and is relatively cheap and painless
      > We know nuclear fission reactors work, are relatively safe (I don't want to argue the point) & produce far less pollution

      Clearly there is no way out of the alternative energy cluster fuck unless we bring in a dictator. I think the last experienced one alive is the dude from Haiti (Baby Doc Duvalier), someone should give him a call before oil becomes more expensive than champagne.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    13. Re:We need to frack by Ferretman · · Score: 2

      Here's a wild idea...how about we do BOTH?!?!?!

      Drill baby drill.....produce so much oil that imports plummet.

      Grow baby grow....produce so much biodiesel that we're exporting the stuff.

      Then let Middle East rust back into insignificance, or let Russia and China fight over it

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    14. Re:We need to frack by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      It probably would. If the men were more worried about where their next meal was comming from they'd have less time to oppress the women. Look at the few hunter gatherer societies left. They might be patriarchal but the men off hunting all day, the women are at least left to their work without someone making sure they keep a tarp over themselves and remain in doors

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    15. Re:We need to frack by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

      If you need a fresh dictator then Mohamed Morsi is shaping up quite nicely in Egypt.

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    16. Re:We need to frack by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      You may not have noticed but fresh water is already starting to become a scarce commodity in the US.

      that's why I stock up on frozen water.

      just re-heat and you're done!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    17. Re:We need to frack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't we just all ride bicycles and eat locally grown vegetables instead? We would all be much healthier and more regular, I personally think that people would be much happier overall. I mean, who doesn't like to ride a bicycle?

    18. Re:We need to frack by Nostromo21 · · Score: 1

      Clearly Sacha Baron Cohen is THE right man for the job! :)

      I find it interesting that all the long-lived societies/cultures in our history were all monarchies or empires e.g. Egypt, Rome, China, Britain, Mongols, etc. I wonder if that tells us something about modern democracy or other forms of government (e.g. Communism), or whether we are doomed to failure, as these are just passing 'fads' or unsustainable in some way...? Have we had a true people's democracy since ancient Greece btw? :-/

    19. Re:We need to frack by camperdave · · Score: 1

      If we can pump oil halfway across the continent, we can do the same with water.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    20. Re:We need to frack by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

      The special interest will prevent that from ever happening, even it is the best solution available.

    21. Re:We need to frack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, all biofuel does is use food for fuel. That's wrong. My desire to drive a car should never outweigh someone else's need to eat. We need to get solar power working more efficiently. We also need to refine out power usage to be more efficient.

    22. Re:We need to frack by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Climate change be darned, we now have an excuse to adopt low emission renewable fuels in the liberation of Saudi women from the tyranny of fundislamentalism! :)

    23. Re:We need to frack by gtall · · Score: 1

      Maybe it might be wise to do some more research on fracking...just to be sure we aren't fracking ourselves in the process. Anytime anything looks to become economic force, it makes sense to investigate its ramifications before everyone jumps on the bandwagon. Look what the housing bubble did.

    24. Re:We need to frack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Otherwise, God knows what those effin Canucks might force us to do!

      We need to get our fracking industry going full bore, convert all semi's to use it, and get to where we import 0% oil from anywhere.

    25. Re:We need to frack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys are both living in a fantasy world. Fracking will help with oil and gas production, but get the US to the point of not importing oil? A) despite recent dubious speculation in the news, that's not going to happen. Oil production has been in decline since the 1970s. You'd have to more than double current production of oil. Good luck with that; B) even if you could manage that, production will still decline eventually, at which point you'll be back to relying on an importer.

      Bio-diesel will help a little, but if you look at what it would take to make a significant dent in demand, let alone enough to equate to current domestic oil production (i.e. to roughly double domestic production), the demands on arable land, water, and fertilizer to make it happen can not be plausibly met. If the US were Brazil and could grow sugar cane on a grand scale to make ethanol, maybe it could matter, but as it exists, current methods would simply drive up food prices and make a small contribution to the energy mix even if deployed on a grand scale. We're talking millions of barrels of the stuff per day to start mattering.

      Worst of all, the US doesn't even import much oil from Saudi Arabia anyway. Most of it comes from Canada and Mexico. Basically, Saudi Arabia could sell their sizable supply to any country in the world (e.g., the afore-mentioned China, but Russia doesn't need it, because they're major producers themselves), and any disruption in that supply will affect prices everywhere, even if you get your oil from somewhere else. It's like saying "We don't want to support the drug trade, and we don't like dealer X, so I'm buying my illegal drugs from supplier Y." You might think you're making a difference, but not really. That just means drug dealer X has more to sell to someone else. They'll get just as much money at whatever the market price is. You want to fix the problem? Stop buying the stuff.

      No, if you really want to reach the goal of zero imports of liquid and gaseous fuels and not care what happens in part of the world that has a huge supply of it, you need to get off the stuff *completely*. Your best bet for doing that is investing in alternatives such as nuclear, solar, wind, and anything else you can think of, while simultaneously reducing demand by investing heavily in efficiency and in infrastructure to use the alternatives more effectively.

      Please note that all of these assume more expensive oil in the future. In other words, any way you accomplish it, energy prices will be going up. In that sense the one "sure bet" in all of this is energy efficiency. Even if you can't afford to switch, at least park the fricking inefficient SUV. That will make more difference than fracking or bio-diesel.

    26. Re:We need to frack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nearly everything you said is technically and morally wrong. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    27. Re:We need to frack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll give you ten nuclear power plants when you find a business model that can maintain good safety standards for the entire design life of the plants.

    28. Re:We need to frack by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Fischer-tropsch (gasoline, diesel and LPG) and dimethyl ether, all from syngas, from biomass reforming.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    29. Re:We need to frack by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      I have a suggestion: breeder reactors. Hmmm?

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    30. Re:We need to frack by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      See, but wait, I agree with everthing you say, except for this one critical point: Once you build a breeder reactor, the nominal cost of the electricity thereby generated is even cheaper than current oil technology. Building those reactors is the key to breaking out of the log jamb you describe. Of course that is why they had to be banned by treaty, and only implemented in France, where, rumor has it, certain monetary interests maintain their gold horde. *takes off foil hat* Anyway, that is why we need to repudiate the treaty and implement the draft for the purpose of covering our nation with breeders.

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    31. Re:We need to frack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a suggestion: breeder reactors. Hmmm?

      Let me know when I can fit one in my car

    32. Re:We need to frack by Nostromo21 · · Score: 1

      Hey, I think all politicians, cops, lawyers, judges & any other professions that have significant social responsibility, should be made to wear GPS trackers on their persons at all times while on duty, & perhaps even when not, just to see how they like them apples.

      But, we've hijacked this very important thread on human rights for Saudi women enough already, so let's get back on topic ;).

      I haven't had a chance to read all 582 post to date, but I imagine there aren't many that support this new law, even with the few Saudi men that have posted here from what I saw. Needless to say, this is driven by more traditional (read: old fart) little men with big egos & generations of FUD permeating their Islamic culture, in this regard anyway.

      I have no idea how we enlighten much of the rest of the world on the oh so many, many inhuman & unjust things we (try and) do to each other & the other species on this planet, not to mention the planet itself. We have an internet with almost instant global communication, but still no fucking enforceable, universal bill of rights...? There is something very, very wrong with us I have to conclude *huge Shrek sigh*.

      (disclaimer: I'm an old fart & a grumpy old bastard who generally doesn't like other people or their children, BUT, this kind of thing *really* gets my goat!)

  5. This will be reality in all countries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... if you let the insane Muslims invade them.

    1. Re:This will be reality in all countries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, look at Indonesia. The largest muslim country. Wait ...

    2. Re:This will be reality in all countries... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Have you seen what has been going on in Indonesia lately?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    3. Re:This will be reality in all countries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... if you let the insane Muslims invade them.

      Just ask France. France has entire districts run by Muslims that even the police are afraid to enter. In their own country. France is not alone here. It's spreading across Europe.

      These are generally not people who assimilate into their new culture melting-pot style. These are people who take over by having a drastically superior birth rate.

      I'll give the Muslims credit for one thing - they're smart in that realistic sense, same way the Chinese are. They won't fuck over their own nations with psychotic immigration policies just to prove how "inclusive" they are. We do. Perhaps they deserve to survive in a way that we don't.

      No culture that doesn't preserve itself has ever survived, big surprise there. No, valuing and preserving your own culture is NOT wrong in any way and feeling guilty about that is just the kind of plain insanity that's so common these days. It's only wrong if you try to stop someone else from doing the same.

    4. Re:This will be reality in all countries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen.

    5. Re:This will be reality in all countries... by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Have you seen what has been going on in Indonesia lately?

      No. What exactly happens?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    6. Re:This will be reality in all countries... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2
      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re:This will be reality in all countries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This happens: http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/un-condemns-indonesias-increasing-violence-against-shiites/556039

    8. Re:This will be reality in all countries... by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just ask France. France has entire districts run by Muslims that even the police are afraid to enter. In their own country.

      You're quite right, and is the list of them as they stand right now.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    9. Re:This will be reality in all countries... by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      Evil will always win because good is dumb?

      --
      Good-bye
    10. Re:This will be reality in all countries... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Well, here is what the NYT has to say http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/opinion/no-model-for-muslim-democracy.html , not that they are the most reliable of sources.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    11. Re:This will be reality in all countries... by renoX · · Score: 2

      > Just ask France. France has entire districts run by Muslims that even the police are afraid to enter.

      Bullshit, the reason why the police is afraid to enter is that they are run by gangs (selling drugs usually).
      The religion has nothing to do with it.

    12. Re:This will be reality in all countries... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2

      Balls, the police weren't afraid to enter - Sarko destroyed the "police de proximité", giving all the cash to his blue eyed boys in the "Brigade Anit Criminalité" who spent all their time running around like the cowboys they were, ending up shaking down the drug dealers for cash.

      10 years of right wing authoritarian blather and reductions in police man power are what let the situation get to where it is now.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    13. Re:This will be reality in all countries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said, invade from within like a trojan horse.

    14. Re:This will be reality in all countries... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      they are run by gangs (selling drugs usually).

      Hey, you've just pretty accurately described the Ummah. Remember, religion is the opium of the people.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    15. Re:This will be reality in all countries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This seems to be a list of areas needing extra attention from the gov't due to social problems, whatever they are:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_urban_zone

  6. That's a waste of resources by aglider · · Score: 1

    There's a number of cheaper solutions.
    - put them in chains at home
    - put them in jail
    - chain them to their male guardian
    - kill them all
    .
    Any non hilarious or non ironic comment to this article in /. should be discarded by the "automatic moderator overlord".

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    1. Re:That's a waste of resources by OzPeter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      - kill them all

      This is the best of all of those solutions. Think about it .. it doesn't take any resources at all to implement, and in a generation or so Saudi Arabia will have totally cured itself of all those pesky upstart women!

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:That's a waste of resources by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      but pussy

    3. Re:That's a waste of resources by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

      - kill them all

      This is the best of all of those solutions. Think about it .. it doesn't take any resources at all to implement

      Uhh, tell the Nazis that "kill them all" didn't take any resources....

    4. Re:That's a waste of resources by Nostromo21 · · Score: 0

      How many men does it take to change a light bulb? None, just let the bitch do the dishes in the dark!

      How many men does it take to clean a toilet? None - that's the woman's job!

      Why do women have such small feet? So they can stand closer to the kitchen sink.

      How do you make a woman orgasm? Who cares.

    5. Re:That's a waste of resources by masmullin · · Score: 1

      Yes, Butt "pussy" is the type of pussy when there is no womens.

    6. Re:That's a waste of resources by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      - kill them all

      This is the best of all of those solutions. Think about it .. it doesn't take any resources at all to implement

      Uhh, tell the Nazis that "kill them all" didn't take any resources....

      Hey .. If I can strangle girl babies single handed so can Saudi's!

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    7. Re:That's a waste of resources by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but they didn't have nukes. Saudi Arabia? Glass the place. Take off, nuke the site from orbit. Its's the only way to be sure.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    8. Re:That's a waste of resources by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      I know right, they had to bring in IBM to help them caculate more effecient methods.

      --
      Good-bye
    9. Re:That's a waste of resources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but they were trying to introduce a NAZI theology at the same time.

      A well entrenched religion can just issue a new order from god to kill your wife(s) and daughters, just like big G did with Abraham and his son.

      The infidels who refuse can be mopped up after, much smaller job, and only the really devout are left as well!

  7. Dangerously spreading islamic radicalism by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Unfortunately things such as this reflect the will of much of the population there, the governments actions just represent the attitudes of the population in that area. There are a few dissenters but far between. In fact the saudi arabian government has expiremented with loosening the laws on women but have been met with death threats and back lash from the population from trying such things. what is also concerning is that Europe seems to be under threat from immigration from countries with ultra conservative values such as Pakistan.because fertility rates in Europe are far too low, below replacement level, there is a real danger of as well Europeans headed towards extinction, unless Europeans start having more children and stop allowing in this immigration invasion that is destroying Europe, by rapidly reproducing muslims.

    1. Re:Dangerously spreading islamic radicalism by Snotnose · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm guessing about half the population doesn't like this idea. But that half can't vote so who cares about them.

    2. Re:Dangerously spreading islamic radicalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh look a racist!

      We should concern ourselves with ideology not trivial phenotype traits.

    3. Re:Dangerously spreading islamic radicalism by joh · · Score: 1

      what is also concerning is that Europe seems to be under threat from immigration from countries with ultra conservative values such as Pakistan.because fertility rates in Europe are far too low, below replacement level, there is a real danger of as well Europeans headed towards extinction, unless Europeans start having more children and stop allowing in this immigration invasion that is destroying Europe, by rapidly reproducing muslims.

      So you think this is genetically transported? *This* is racism.

    4. Re:Dangerously spreading islamic radicalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or we can recruit their mothers, sisters and daughters into western civilisation, then where's their next generation going to come from, exactly? Watch the way the react to women claiming rights in their homelands, and tell me they're not deathly afraid of exactly this.

    5. Re:Dangerously spreading islamic radicalism by Stiletto · · Score: 0

      Jeez, is Stormfront down today or something? Tell us all about how the glorious pure white race is being out-bred by those rapidly reproducing muslims...

    6. Re:Dangerously spreading islamic radicalism by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Nobody votes for the king.

    7. Re:Dangerously spreading islamic radicalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Racist piece of shit

    8. Re:Dangerously spreading islamic radicalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not. This is not about race, this is about CULTURE and habits.

    9. Re:Dangerously spreading islamic radicalism by LordLucless · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Firstly, genetics isn't the only form of hereditary. Cultural values are transmitted from parents to children - including attitudes to women. Secondly, the GP was talking about Muslims, which is a religious group, not a racial group.

      So, yeah, you're stupid on two counts.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    10. Re:Dangerously spreading islamic radicalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, because discrimination against blacks is ok if done under the pretense of trying to save the honky-tonk white culture of the South.

    11. Re:Dangerously spreading islamic radicalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good job they can vote if they immigrate, really.

    12. Re:Dangerously spreading islamic radicalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt many people actually support these laws, but the same powerful people who don't tolerate women's rights also don't tolerate criticism against their own actions, so it's safest to keep your mouth shut. For someone used to free speech that may seem like silent approval.

    13. Re:Dangerously spreading islamic radicalism by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately things such as this reflect the will of much of the population there...

      I doubt that. Out of the entire population, only 20% are Saudi citizens (the rest are migrant workers with no say in anything). Out of that 20%, less than half are women. So this means, that this new system is being supported by less than 10% of the population.

      In fact the saudi arabian government has expiremented with loosening the laws on women but have been met with death threats and back lash from the population from trying such things.

      Death threats? Obama gets death threats and back lash from the far-right every day. That doesn't mean he lets them set the agenda.

      Face it. Saudi Arabia is a highly hierarchical structure. The minority in power do not want to let go any of its power. That's why we're getting laws like that one.

    14. Re:Dangerously spreading islamic radicalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No-one has said anything about discriminating blacks. Europe does not have to allow massive immigration from everywhere if the people don't provide any significant value. This has absolutely nothing to do with race, this is directly about culture, how much the people value the benefits provided to them, etc.

    15. Re:Dangerously spreading islamic radicalism by DreadPiratePizz · · Score: 2

      It's not racism, just an observation that parents usually teach children values similar to their own.

    16. Re:Dangerously spreading islamic radicalism by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      Firstly, genetics isn't the only form of hereditary. Cultural values are transmitted from parents to children - including attitudes to women. Secondly, the GP was talking about Muslims, which is a religious group, not a racial group.

      So, yeah, you're stupid on two counts.

      The GP clearly does not think religion is genetically transmitted. he was accusing the GPP of thinking that religion is genetically transmitted.

      So you are the stupid one.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    17. Re:Dangerously spreading islamic radicalism by LordLucless · · Score: 2

      The GP clearly does not think religion is genetically transmitted. he was accusing the GPP of thinking that religion is genetically transmitted.

      Which is pretty stupid, since the GP said nothing about genetics.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    18. Re:Dangerously spreading islamic radicalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Africans in the honky tonk south were brought there against their will. Immigration is a choice.

    19. Re:Dangerously spreading islamic radicalism by Nostromo21 · · Score: 1

      Australia is going down a similar path unfortunately. Though there have been more SE Asian migrants over the past 20 years or so, we are now seeing a shift & a large increase in middle-eastern & African muslim ethnic groups coming into the country, which is noticeably affecting poorer communities & our labour market.

      Going back to EU, let's not forget that this is still very much a continent of widely disparate cultures, beliefs & nations, a melting pot of explosive ingredients just waiting to go off. Getting them to agree on anything as big as this will be much harder than a unified country like the US or Aus, say, which is running under one set of leadership & laws (I come from EU originally, for ref).

    20. Re:Dangerously spreading islamic radicalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But only niggers and sand-niggers are Muslim, so it is racial.

    21. Re:Dangerously spreading islamic radicalism by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      what is also concerning is that Europe seems to be under threat from immigration from countries with ultra conservative values such as Pakistan.because fertility rates in Europe are far too low, below replacement level, there is a real danger of as well Europeans headed towards extinction, unless Europeans start having more children and stop allowing in this immigration invasion that is destroying Europe, by rapidly reproducing muslims.

      Europeans having more children would not stop this immigration because so many people in Europe, particularly politicians and generally "bosses", think the more people the better. They want a constant supply of new people being fed in at the bottom to do shit-shovelling jobs for peanuts. And then more again, when the previous lot better themselves and they in turn join the ranks of those demanding new shit shovellers.

      The situation is like running faster and faster along a tight-rope trying not to fall off, but that cannot last. One day soon we will hit the wall. These people also argue efficiencies of scale, but we have passed that point long ago. I would say the optimum population for the UK would be 20 million at the most. People already spend a great deal of their effort and resources simply struggling against the pressure of numbers. Time spent in trafic jams and queues are obvious examples. Also some things can never be scaled up - land area and natural resources.

  8. Call of duty for world wide hackers! by aglider · · Score: 2

    Those are electronic devices with some embedded communication device.
    Do you need more fun that that?

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    1. Re:Call of duty for world wide hackers! by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Those are electronic devices with some embedded communication device.
      Do you need more fun that that?

      Umm .. no .. its more like:

      Border guard: Hey you there .. who's your owner?
      Woman: .. Um .. Sheik Ali Baba Sheik Sheik the Third
      Border guard: (Phones Sheik Ali Baba Sheik Sheik the Third)
      Sheik Ali Baba Sheik Sheik the Third: (answering phone) Yo .. the Sheik man here!
      Border guard: Yo Man! I gots one of your possessions here. Seem's like she was trying to slip one past you.
      Sheik Ali Baba Sheik Sheik the Third: Damn .. that's the third time this week. I'm gonna have to do something about this.
      Border guard: Yeah I know whats you mean.
      ...

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Call of duty for world wide hackers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh... What? How does that relate to hacking at all?

  9. Evil technology by diodeus · · Score: 1

    The firm that created this should be shamed (or hacked) out of existence.

    1. Re:Evil technology by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      The firm that created this should be shamed (or hacked) out of existence.

      The trouble is that the Saudi government is an ally. And if you RTFA you'll see that it is an automated SMS generated when someone attempts to (legally) cross the border. Most likely a simple SMS gateway linked to a passport reader and a DB full of the phone numbers of male relatives - all which could be bought retail.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Evil technology by somethingtoremember · · Score: 0

      The trouble is that the Saudi government is an ally.

      America doesn't have allies, only interests

  10. War on Women by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is is this term never applied to Muslim countries by American secular progressives?

    1. Re:War on Women by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's not a war, but a genocide on women. (metaphorical speaking)

    2. Re:War on Women by BonThomme · · Score: 1

      no, the interesting question is why fundamentalist Christians never apply the term to anything.

  11. 2 years old and not only women by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The "service" has been in operation since 2010 and it applies to all "dependents" which includes children, contracted laborers, etc. See: http://riyadhbureau.com/blog/2012/11/saudi-women-tracking. As offensive as the Saudi gov't policies are, getting half the story isn't going to help matters.

  12. Saudi Arabia by blind+biker · · Score: 0

    ...is the anus of the world.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:Saudi Arabia by c0lo · · Score: 1

      ...is the anus of the world.

      Too bad you need the shit they export in huge quantities, eh?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    2. Re:Saudi Arabia by blind+biker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Too bad you need the shit they export in huge quantities, eh?

      Well played, but I'd like to point out that my family does not own a car - we go around mostly by bike or walking (I commute to work by bicycle every workday, even in winter). For the rare occasions that we need to go further than 20 Km, we use public transport. So, while we do use hydrocarbons indirectly (various polymers and other chemicals), we're trying to minimize it by not having a car and recycling plastics.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    3. Re:Saudi Arabia by countach · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's great, but what do you think the ashfelt and tarmac that you cycle on is made of? Pixie dust?

    4. Re:Saudi Arabia by styrotech · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's great, but what do you think the ashfelt that you cycle on is made of?

      If I had to guess, I'd say ash and felt?

    5. Re:Saudi Arabia by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Too bad you need the shit they export in huge quantities, eh?

      Well played, but I'd like to point out that my family does not own a car - we go around mostly by bike or walking (I commute to work by bicycle every workday, even in winter). etc

      Congrats.
      Other than that, words play, nothing implied at the personal level.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    6. Re:Saudi Arabia by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      We don't need it, we've chosen to use it. We have other options. TPTB have chosen this path for us.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Saudi Arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...is the anus of the world.

      And is in need of some hard, savage anal rap... consentual penetration.

    8. Re:Saudi Arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And was all transported and layed down by really heavy bicycles?

    9. Re:Saudi Arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And arabs/muslims are the excrement that comes from it.

    10. Re:Saudi Arabia by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      That's great, but what do you think the ashfelt and tarmac that you cycle on is made of?

      I guess the meaning of the word "minimize" is lost on you.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    11. Re:Saudi Arabia by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Pixie ash to be specific.

    12. Re:Saudi Arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't even matter if it's asphalt (note spelling) or not. Even if it was neatly-crushed and sorted gravel, it was crushed and delivered by equipment and trucks using petroleum; the tires, paints, plastics, and lubricants in the bicycle are made from petroleum; and the metals were mined and probably processed using petroleum (depends a little on whether it is aluminum, which tends to be processed using hydro power). The fuel for the bicycle is in the form of food for the human body that usually involves plenty of petroleum use during production and transport. They acknowledge this fact by mentioning that they use hydrocarbons indirectly. It's close to impossible not to in an industrialized society these days.

      Even so, he or she has a valid point that they are using FAR less energy, and petroleum in particular, than people who use a car for transportation.

    13. Re:Saudi Arabia by Inda · · Score: 2

      You jest, but ash from coal-fired power stations is often used for making roads.

      We call it asphalt here.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    14. Re:Saudi Arabia by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The anti-environmentalists are the biggest environmental absolutists of them all: They think anything short of returning to a caveman lifestyle isn't enviro-friendly enough. That's what they think environmentalists want.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    15. Re:Saudi Arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you buy food and goods delivered by bicycles? My guess is you buy those things from stores, and those stores have food and goods delivered by diesel trucks which get them from facilities and farms which require diesel and gas to produce them. Almost everything you consume is brought to you by oil. So, it is admirable that you ride bikes, but you still likely rely on oil for your existence.

      I really do admire you for riding bikes though (no sarcasm!).

  13. you chip your dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... and aren't your women even more important to you? /troll

  14. Re:its about time for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep. True. Men belong in the kitchen. Servants to the women who have given life to them.

  15. Allies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Saudia Ararbia now officially supports mysogyny, and Israel is committed to ethnic cleansing. China is totalitarian and the biggest carbon polluter, but they're even more capitalist than the U.S. which they supply with all its cheap plastic crap. Pakistan is a rogue nuclear proliferator, and they harbored Osama bin Laden. Egypt is reformed, but they're head of state just declared his edicts to be above judicial review. Sout Korea is as big as 'currency manipulator' as China.

    What's the world's legacy Super Power to do when it's nearly impossible to cogently define what it takes to be a U.S. ally? Has the world become one large military market place of ideas?

    1. Re:Allies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Israel commiting ethnic cleansing? Really? Based on what evidence?
      Gullible fool.

    2. Re:Allies... by Stiletto · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's easy to miss... When Israel engages in ethnic cleansing, the West calls it "self defense".

    3. Re:Allies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ethnic cleasing: they really suck at it. An advanced military with nuclear weapons and they still haven't even come close to getting the job done.

      Or maybe they aren't actually trying ethnic cleansing.

    4. Re:Allies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Israel commiting ethnic cleansing? Really? Based on what evidence?.

      They use to throw themselves in incinerators in Germany and Poland only about 65 years ago. Are you a holocaust denier?

      (ducks)

    5. Re:Allies... by approachingZero+ · · Score: 0

      Here's an idea. Go fuck yourself.

      --
      'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
    6. Re:Allies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the 10 to 1 rule, though they normally go for more, 5 isralies killed, over 100 killed in Gaza, not ethnic clensing, just a really big stick (mostly supplied by the USA). How much of the USA do the Saudi's own, more than China I would wager.

    7. Re:Allies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh shit is the USA the only good kid in the playground, are the others picking on it, no not yet, but they will, just wait.

    8. Re:Allies... by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

      When Israel engages in ethnic cleansing

      If Israel is engaging in ethnic cleansing, why are they sending food and medical supplies into Gaza?

      http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/11/21/matt-gurney-while-hamas-fires-rockets-israel-delivers-food-and-medicine/

    9. Re:Allies... by jcr · · Score: 2

      Bullshit. If Israel were as evil as the Arab propagandists claim, there wouldn't have been any palestinians left by 1950.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    10. Re:Allies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well for your information, most of the palestos have been kicked out. there was an attempt by arrafat to take over jordan but he failed. the new plan was to take over Lebanon, kick the christians out and let them settle in. in lebanon there is over 500k palestinians in camps. syrias has some camps and jordan has camps. the problems of the ME started in 1948, with the arrival of the israelis in the promissed land. for real, the promissed land was promissed by the UK .

    11. Re:Allies... by belmolis · · Score: 3, Informative

      The fact of the matter is that Gaza, Judea, and Samaria have high rates of population GROWTH, as do Israeli Arabs, which by itself puts paid to the ridiculous claim that Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing. The fact that Israel admits over 100,000 Palestinians from Gaza, Judea, and Samaria for medical care (provided at no charge if the PA does not pay for it) every year is also inconsistent with the claim of ethnic cleansing. Jordan has killed far more Palestinians that Israel ever has.

    12. Re:Allies... by jcr · · Score: 1

      most of the palestos have been kicked out.

      This turns out not to be the case:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    13. Re:Allies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, you mean the carefully executed and precisely targeted air strikes to take out launchers indiscriminately lobbing rockets at civilian targets in a manner that would constitute a violation of The Hague Convention, were Hezbollah and/or Hamas actually party to said convention?!

      After all these years, the fact that the Gaza Strip hasn't yet been turned to glass should be taken as a sign of restraint by the IDF.

    14. Re:Allies... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      What's the world's legacy Super Power to do when it's nearly impossible to cogently define what it takes to be a U.S. ally?

      Toga Party.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    15. Re:Allies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      really?

      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_refugee

          . it says 85% here

    16. Re:Allies... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Actually, the "Palestinian problem" didn't happen when Israel was formed. When it was formed, the Arabs living there were free to join in the society. Then, the Arab countries surrounding Israel told the Arabs living there "We're going to invade and drive these Jews into the sea. Flee to our countries. You'll be safe and can return to your lands when the Jews are gone." Many of the Arabs fled, the surrounding countries invaded but were pushed back. Suddenly, those that fled found they weren't welcomed back. (Would you welcome someone back who sided with a country who was trying to exterminate you?) Meanwhile, the countries they fled to (Jordan, Syria, etc) decided they didn't want these people integrating into their society and kept them in refugee camps. Bonus: It made them easy pawns to play to both keep their own population in line (See what that monster Israel did? Now don't look at the horrid things we're doing.) and to gain sympathy on the world stage (Look at these suffering Palestinians in our lands who we don't help. Isn't Israel evil?).

      Is Israel 100% innocent? No. They've taken some actions that I disagree with (e.g. not dealing harshly with the settlers who do nothing but hurt Israel's cause). But they also didn't start this conflict and they can't end it alone. If Israel puts down their arms first, they'll be wiped out. If the Palestinians put down their arms, Israel would do the same and there would be peace.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  16. what day is it by reovirus1 · · Score: 1

    I had to check the date to see if it was April 1. Nope...

  17. Now if only.... by countach · · Score: 0

    ...they added the feature to give them an electric shock when they've been sitting on the couch for too long, watching TV and eating bon-bons, this could a perfect system.

  18. Not True, Saudi Arabia didn't sign UN declaration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Muslim countries didn't sign UN declaration of Human Rights because they perceived it as not compatible with Islam. Although these countries got own version of Human Rights declaration:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rights_in_Islam

  19. It gets worse! by bogaboga · · Score: 0

    Women are not allowed to leave the kingdom without permission from their male guardian, who must give his consent by signing what is known as the 'yellow sheet' at the airport or border."

    I mean, the [mighty] USA has never complained about this kind of treatment. Sounds like hipocrisy to me.

    1. Re:It gets worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe that's a good thing. maybe it's none i our business an we need to butt out more. let the crazy people fight amongst themselves while the rest of the world keeps moving.

  20. Newsflash! by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 2

    Diversity means accepting a little more than just being served by mustachioed waiters with amusing accents in quaint ethnic restaurants.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:Newsflash! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      actually, diversity means implanting one transmitter in each breast.

      that way, they can transmit in a....

      (wait for it)

      bipolar pattern

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:Newsflash! by approachingZero+ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So there's this ugly realization that if you embrace the concept that all cultures are equal you must stand by and helplessly watch as little girls have their clitoris mutilated and homosexuals hung. It's like giving people democracy only to find out they want to elect people from the seventh century. Crap. Now what?

      --
      'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
    3. Re:Newsflash! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I think this kind of relgious fruitcakes are a product of the last hundred years.

    4. Re:Newsflash! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the west, especially in the US, we often mutilate newborn males. First take the log out of your own eye and all that stuff.

    5. Re:Newsflash! by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      I don't get it. Is "bipolar pattern" a thing? Do boobs have poles?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    6. Re:Newsflash! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He forgot to take off his sunglasses. He would have made sense then.

    7. Re:Newsflash! by spire3661 · · Score: 0

      We do it for (arguable) health reasons, and it causes the vast majority no harm AND its entirely voluntary on the parents. TO make your analogy equivalent, we would have to actually snip the head of the penis off entirely, not just its covering.

      --
      Good-bye
    8. Re:Newsflash! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know who you're actually replying to, but I loved your bit about 'entirely voluntary on the parents'. It isn't done to the parents, it's done to the children, and they should wait until they're 18 and let them decide for themselves if they want to have part of their genitals removed.

    9. Re:Newsflash! by Xarvh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's retarded.
      You don't "give" people democracy.
      They have to take it for themselves.
      You can nudge, encourage, provide education, but ultimately "democracy from above" will never work, because it's a matter of culture and you can't have democracy if first you don't change the culture.

    10. Re:Newsflash! by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      So there's this ugly realization that if you embrace the concept that all cultures are equal you must stand by and helplessly watch as little girls have their clitoris mutilated

      I have no sympathy for theocracies like Saudi Arabia, but note that at least, they are not involved in that kind of practice

    11. Re:Newsflash! by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      How about the "equivalent" of cutting off our daughters' labia? Not even totally, but just enough to make them look "cleaner". I guess the clitoral hood is a better equivalent, and I'm sure we could come up with a rationalization.

    12. Re:Newsflash! by approachingZero+ · · Score: 5, Informative

      Perhaps you are mistaken? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_female_genital_mutilation_by_country Saudi-Arabia - Female genital mutilation is prevalent, but is declining

      --
      'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
    13. Re:Newsflash! by approachingZero+ · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. Perhaps you are correct, that may explain the disasters that are South Korea, Japan, Germany etc.

      --
      'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
    14. Re:Newsflash! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You create the problem for yourself by presuming that all cultures being equal means that all cultures are beyond questioning and that you are helpless against them. You can accept that all cultures are equal without bowing down before them. All cultures are equally irrelevant when it comes to expecting someone who doesn't share your views to obey them.

      If it's proven that my culture as an Australian is causing harm to other humans, then my culture is wrong. If my culture demands action from others who don't share it, I have absolutely no right to expect them to obey it. If someone thinks my culture is doing harm to myself I'd say people should be tolerant and let me do what I like, it's only me I'm hurting. The moment I expect others to fall in line with it or to suffer in it's name then I've crossed the line between requesting that others accept my culture into expecting them to obey it.

      As per this, if a woman for some reason wants this treatment for themself then I guess I wont question their choice/culture. If however it is to be forced upon them by another then I'm of the view "It's my culture!" can be responded to with "Your culture is wrong".

      Is that intolerant? If so, I'll wear the label with pride because I don't think such actions should be tolerated.

    15. Re:Newsflash! by Xarvh · · Score: 1

      I don't know much about Japan, but you may want to check the history of South Korea and Germany.
      Are you perchance American?

    16. Re:Newsflash! by approachingZero+ · · Score: 1

      History of these nations is available via the world wide web, feel free to investigate as I already have.

      --
      'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
    17. Re:Newsflash! by Xarvh · · Score: 1

      Germany had already a culture of democracy, Hitler himself had to try and run for presidency: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_presidential_election,_1932
      South Korea reached democracy by means of popular mass protests: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_Democracy_Movement
      Your investigation sucks.

    18. Re:Newsflash! by Xarvh · · Score: 1

      Oh my! What do we have here?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taish%C5%8D_period#Japan_after_World_War_I:_Taish.C5.8D_Democracy
      A two-party system before World War 2?
      Quote "The two-party political system that had been developing in Japan since the turn of the century finally came of age after World War I".

    19. Re:Newsflash! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do boobs have poles?

      No, but Poles have boobs.

    20. Re:Newsflash! by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you are mistaken?

      Indeed I was. I was convinced (by what source of information?) it was mostly practiced in non-muslism african countries. You deserve to be mod'ed up

    21. Re:Newsflash! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know, but I'd believe it. They cause my hands to go right for them whenever I can, and that sure sounds like magnetism to me.

    22. Re:Newsflash! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why the so-called Arab Spring was not all Rainbows and Unicorns. Crazy shits like The Muslim Brotherhood took over countries like Egypt. The tyrannical regime of Bashar Assad is fighting off a rebellion that has been heavily infiltrated by Al Quieda. Aside from the relative lack of oil in Syria, we (and everyone else in the world) haven't gotten involved because its a war without any "good guys".

    23. Re:Newsflash! by renoX · · Score: 1

      > and it causes the vast majority no harm

      Sure, but there *are* accidents, rare yes, but they do happen: what to think of parents who subjects their children to a totally gratuitous risk (even a small one) for religious reason?

      > AND its entirely voluntary on the parents.

      Most of the time the removal of the clitoris of a girl is accepted by the parents..

    24. Re:Newsflash! by approachingZero+ · · Score: 1
      Alas, a two party system does not a democracy make

      Japan ~ 'Early in the occupation MacArthur saw the need to drastically change the Meiji Constitution. In his autobiography, MacArthur argued:

      "We could not simply encourage the growth of democracy. We had to make sure that it grew. Under the old constitution, government flowed downward from the emperor, who held the supreme authority, to those to whom he had delegated power. It was a dictatorship to begin with, a hereditary one, and the people existed to serve it." http://www.crf-usa.org/election-central/bringing-democracy-to-japan.html

      As for Germany ~ 'but most people date the end of the Weimar Republic to 1933, when Adolf Hitler took control and the constitution became effectively meaningless under his Third Reich.' http://www.wisegeek.com/what-was-the-weimar-republic.htm

      And I did forget to mention Canada, the fought England for the independence when exactly? Australia?

      --
      'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
    25. Re:Newsflash! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Do boobs have poles?
      Also, do Poles have boobs?

    26. Re:Newsflash! by approachingZero+ · · Score: 1

      Thanks.

      --
      'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
    27. Re:Newsflash! by Xarvh · · Score: 1

      Who voted in that two-party system?
      Anyway, as I said I wasn't sure about the democracy in Japan.

      Still, there was a culture of democracy before the Third Reich.
      It's not like you make such a culture disappear all of the sudden with a dictatorship.

      Was the democracy in Canada and Australia imposed from the outside? oO

    28. Re:Newsflash! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      No it's easy, you just accept that all cultures are not equal, you can accept that those which embrace these horrible practices are clearly some of the worst without trying to rank them all.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    29. Re:Newsflash! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It's like giving people democracy only to find out they want to elect people from the seventh century. Crap. Now what?

      You say, "well fuck you then", take their democracy away, and institute a period of authoritarian rule that is designed to combat this kind of crap, and raise a generation that is more accustomed to and in favor of things like human rights. Like Ataturk did in Turkey, or US did in Japan.

    30. Re:Newsflash! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democracy alone is simply mob rule, either direct or delegated. It's an enlightened constitution recognizing the inherent rights of the individual to life and liberty that makes the difference. Of course, the citizens must understand and enshrine the two together in order to have a free society. Case in point, this no longer exists in the modern world.

  21. Damm i'm horny! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wheres the nearest woman? Theres an app for that!

  22. I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happens to (hot) trannies?

  23. you know, if this happened in the west... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Funny

    it could actually start a ...

    pussy riot!

    (what? WHAT?? someone had to say it!)

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  24. conservative sounds like a misnomer. by Aggrav8d · · Score: 1

    For a conservative country, they're very keen to break new ground in high tech surveillance and invasion of privacy. I mean, it's all so... modern, you know? Is this horse dead yet?

  25. Ok so by p0p0 · · Score: 1

    All the UN has to do is say "To use our planets orbit, or services reliant on satellites or anything airborne , you need to agree to these human rights." There goes their GPS tracking. If they launch a satellite, wait for it to reach orbit and then let it "malfunction".

    If these people can leave the stone age, they should be confined to the ground until they smarten the hell up.

    1. Re:Ok so by tftp · · Score: 1

      Too bad that the GPS was developed for military use; and military does not observe human rights much (except when they don't care.) Besides, what the UN got to do with GPS systems? Do they own them? Of course they don't. The UN owns nothing.

      Interfering with other country's satellites is an act of war. A country does not need to launch its own GPS system to use GPS. You only need a cheap receiver, and the receiver does not ask you about your political affiliation.

      If these people can leave the stone age, they should be confined to the ground until they smarten the hell up.

      Perhaps so, from the POV of a white man (for what it's worth.) However accomplishing this is not possible. First, Muslims comprise a significant part of the population of the planet. Second, Muslims live in all countries, including the West. Third, the West has put on itself the handcuffs of liberalism and democracy. Regardless of the value of those handcuffs, it cannot just go Fascist on those Arabs. And fourth, Arabs sit on top of a lot of oil.

      Saudi Arabia can be fairly accurately described as the last country on Earth where slavery is alive and well. All women are de-facto slaves of their male guardians. But there is a large number of foreign workers in the country - and those workers are living there as slaves, for all practical purposes. This is one evil country, if you ask me. There was some noise a year ago about a Sheik who brought his slaves into the USA and tried to abuse them.

  26. Behead all those who insult the Prophet by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Is now an official policy statement for western industrialized nations too.

  27. The ultra-conservative kingdom? by MoeDumb · · Score: 1

    Like every sharia law complaint country, Saudi Arabia is not 'ultra-conservative.' It is ultra-repressive and tyrannical.

    --
    Mod Me Up. You'll make a grown man cry.
  28. This is almost a good idea by approachingZero+ · · Score: 0

    I was hoping to implement a electronic tracking system on anyone from Saudi Arabia, guess it'll be over halfway finished here directly.

    --
    'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
  29. Fail. by VAElynx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm no feminist, but this is unjust and stupid
    It's also hilarious how the USA are all over supposed human rights in Russia and Belarus where people live with dignity, and overlook insane places like the Saudi Arabia is.

    1. Re:Fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its not the first time. Since Syria has problems these days, ill use it as an example. Hama massacre,1982. The west has turned a blind eye at that time. why? because they needed Al Assad( support in the1st Gulf war in exchange of Controlling Lebanon after the war). Same with Saudi Arabia.Once(if) the US stops using oil, the whole western media will support an uprising against SA and the presidents of the western countries will call out the people to riot against the royal familly. Then, you will see the western population going ohhhh , the media is right!.

    2. Re:Fail. by jcr · · Score: 2

      This isn't even a feminism issue, it's a human rights issue. Only tyrannies interfere with the right of anyone who hasn't committed a crime to leave the country.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    3. Re:Fail. by zaroastra · · Score: 1

      as you probably now, USA care about human rights of a country in a proportionally inverse fashion to the amount of oil they import from said country...
      hell they are not even using enough internal oil to care enough for their own people!

      --
      I'm trying to get modded "Interesting Flamebait Informative and Insightful Redundant Troll" *-* Please Help *-*
    4. Re:Fail. by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      As a non-feminist you might want to take a look at your own status in your own country: when your wife takes your kids to live with another man, if you miss even one payment to them you won't be issued a passport. You can also have your driving license revoked. Someone holds the power in the family, and if it's not the male worker like in Saudi Arabia, it's the female taker like in the US

    5. Re:Fail. by anon208 · · Score: 0

      The US should have to do everything or be brought into everything. They gots their own problems.

    6. Re:Fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need to be a feminist to recognize this is unjust.

      And you are right about U.S. hypocrisy--however at this moment, they have us by the short and curlies until we cure our addiction to their oil.

  30. Only on Slashdot because its an electronic system by linatux · · Score: 1

    There's been no change to the opression, just the method.

    Still - maybe 'Anonymous' can do something useful for a change?

  31. Woman tracking technology - Made in USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who do you think makes refines and supports these tracking systems?
    IBM, CISCO, Symantec, ORACLE... the usual suspects. the same people
    who develop office content filtering firewalls and then go sell them to Iran
    and North Korea to block free speech and non state approved media.

  32. This is merely the digitisation of the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It may surprise people but.... Saudi has ALWAYS had this system of tracking women.

    As a child, when I left the country to visit my grandparents, accompanied by my mother, we had to be legally escorted to the airport and signed out by my dad, on re-entry we were re-checked into my dad's care.
    We were westerners living under the same rules as the locals. This was as far back as early 80s... the system has been in play forever. This is merely a modernisation of the system. I'm not saying I agree with the practice but, this is hardly headline news as its simply an upgrade to rules and methods for applying those rules that have been in play for a long long time.

    Why is it only now, when computers get involved that people are having issues with the basic concept? It was widely unknown it appears when the system was paperbased.

    Expat Brat.

    1. Re:This is merely the digitisation of the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Because this is a geek news website. We're interested in the computers, not the women.

    2. Re:This is merely the digitisation of the system by belmolis · · Score: 1

      The news is precisely that rather than moderating this outrageous system they're using new technology to extend it.

    3. Re:This is merely the digitisation of the system by petman · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is exactly the point. Yet your comment got downmodded for some reason. Go figure.

    4. Re:This is merely the digitisation of the system by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Do you think they'll patent the process, "with a computer?" I think it will be nice if only the Saudis can use this.

    5. Re:This is merely the digitisation of the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it only now?

      Because Islam is today's enemy. Remember we are at war with Islam. We have always been at war with Islam.

    6. Re:This is merely the digitisation of the system by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Why is it only now, when computers get involved that people are having issues with the basic concept?

      It's hard to make a news story out of "nothing happened today, today is the same as yesterday".

      What was happening yesterday was grossly offensive, but unfortunately the world of yesterday was not as global-aware and globally-active as it is today. The world of yesterday was not as pro-humanrights as it is today. The world of yesterday was not as anti-sexist as it is today. The unfortunate fact is that the people of yesterday never made an issue out of it. So today we inherit a world where this sort of behavior in Saudi Arabia is not "news".

      The fact that they are "upgrading" their systems with modern technology does not in itself make it any better or worse. HOWEVER, it is indeed an excellent opportunity to turn this into a headline news story. It can be "Heay look! They've got some new computer system to oppress women". Yeah they were oppressing women yesterday, but now were have something new, something today's-news newsworthy. We have something new to draw fresh and active attention to the issue. The computerization of the system is in itself meaningless, but it is an excellent opportunity/excuse to shout headline news stories. Headline news stories to inform the uninformed. Headline news stories to motivate those who knew about it but who reluctantly accepted "that's the way the world is" and who felt no realistic ability to do anything about it.

      Big changes require big movements to push them through. The fact is that we need rallying cries and banners to bring people together. If computerizing the system can be a rallying cry, if it can be a banner, then so be it. Don't blame a righteous messenger for using meaningless detail to hoist a much needed banner.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    7. Re:This is merely the digitisation of the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why is it only now, when computers get involved that people are having issues with the basic concept?..."

      Because computers, like the one you're using, allow us to know about this kind of stuff. Of all the benefits that computers have brought, that one factor--the ease of spreading knowledge--far outweighs everything else. Nothing will ever be the same now that people know, and now that they know they will not stop wanting to know. This is a good thing.

  33. Plebs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They need RFIDs to know if their women are at the kitchen?

  34. Who are we to condem them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cows are holy for Hindus, far more important than even people. Yet, we treat cows brutally and fucking eat them.

  35. No more generations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know this might sound extreme, but Saudi women ought to opt to all get tubal ligation. I think that might end the absurd Saudi sexism issues once and for all.

  36. SHUT UP! YOU PIXIE HATER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Supermarkets are stocked by those pixies!
    They magically deliver all those items to the shelves, all the way from the Kingdom of Shrumia.
    Where gnomes collect them from under the market-trees where they gently float to the ground ON THEIR OWN when they are ripe.

  37. Ethnic cleasing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An advanced military with nuclear weapons

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  38. Because one does not exclude the other... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You seem to be having a wrong impression what the term "ethnic cleansing" means.
    Besides that, it's great PR. Saving children from fire and stuff. Let's all think of the children for a moment, shall we?

    Also, it would be really great if you had bothered reading beyond the headline. You know... As in not embarrassing.

    On a day when Israel conducted hundreds of bombing runs against Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip, and Hamas returned the favour with hundreds of rockets fired at Israeli civilians, over a hundred Israeli trucks, loaded with humanitarian supplies, were lined up, ready to roll into Gaza to support the population there.

    The delay was at the Kerem Shalom border crossing point, which is the main transfer point for supplies entering Gaza. Israel co-ordinates the transfer of basic supplies â" food and medicine, primarily â" into Gaza. The supplies themselves are donated by the international community, by private donors or purchased by the Palestinian Authority, which still controls the West Bank (Hamas seized Gaza in a brief civil war in 2007). Whatever their original source, Israel accepts the supplies, loads them into transport trucks and drives the trucks into a purpose-built compound at the border near Kerem Shalom. The trucks unload the supplies and return to Israel. Gazan trucks then enter the compound to load and distribute the supplies.

    It's a puff piece, showing Israel's "grace under pressure" and their "nobility and sense of fair-play and justice".
    At the same time it's wagging a finger at Palestinians insinuating that Israel could stop those supplies along with electricity and water they are delivering to their little "ghetto" and let them starve in their own feces and darkness.
    But they won't, cause they are the good guys. And because they care.

    But they like, totally could, you know.

    Itâ(TM)s not just food, of course. Even as the fighting continues between Hamas and Israel, Gaza is receiving more than a hundred megawatts of electrical power from Israel, even as the town the power plant is located in is hit by Hamas rocket fire. On Sunday, Israel evacuated 26 Gazans for treatment in Israeli medical facilities. Much of Gazaâ(TM)s purified water comes from Israel.

    In any normal military conflict, Israel would be entirely within its rights to suspend all food shipments, all medical assistance, and all supplies of electricity and water to Gaza until Hamas surrendered, or at least ceased fire. But Israel wonâ(TM)t do that. They know full well that Hamas wouldnâ(TM)t be deterred by the suffering of its civilian population. It never is. Even as Israel bombs Gaza, it shows more concern for the people living there than Hamas ever has.

  39. Shameful!! by zaroastra · · Score: 1

    That happening on the XXI century, having such a clear violation of human rights (I could quote you on those, but if I recall correctly is the most translated text ever, so RTF UDHR http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml ), is, to say the least, shameful!
    Not having official complaints from every other nation proves the state of uncarefulness for your neighbours our societies reached.

    Beware! It will happen to you next! (And you have been warned for several years now BTW)

    insert mandatory quote here:
    " ... Then they came for me,
    and there was no one left to speak for me." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

    --
    I'm trying to get modded "Interesting Flamebait Informative and Insightful Redundant Troll" *-* Please Help *-*
  40. Time to quit fucking around. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If anyone's taking up a collection to buy handguns for Saudi women, I'm in for a grand.

  41. frack you - biodiesel is wrong by zaroastra · · Score: 3, Interesting

    bio diesel industry is wrong, the benefits you get are obscured by:
    - food scarcity
    - goverment bonuses to big farmer and big evil (insert monsanto/whatever here)
    - patent trolls
    - CO positive, because mass farming is OIL intensive industry
    - lowest return on the barrel ever
    - ecological destruction of habitats
    etc etc etc... just go read about it!

    --
    I'm trying to get modded "Interesting Flamebait Informative and Insightful Redundant Troll" *-* Please Help *-*
    1. Re:frack you - biodiesel is wrong by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Food isn't scarce*.
      Government bonuses can be cut.
      Patents can be overridden by Government.
      Mass farming is *currently* oil intensive. If we go bio-diesel, so does the farming industry. Besides, big picture here, cars, transport trucks, trains, etc, will be carbon neutral.
      The price of oil is going to go through the roof as the world wakes up to the fact that we've past peak oil.
      Habitat destruction doesn't have to happen. Besides, if we stop dumping CO2 into the atmosphere the entire ecology of the planet benefits.

      *Food shortages are a distribution problem, not a production problem.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:frack you - biodiesel is wrong by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      I have read about it. Biodiesel done as a sop to Iowa to get electoral votes is biodiesel done wrong and stupidly. Biodiesel done right originates from species grown on marginal land that can't support food crops reasonably at all.

      This eliminates points 1, 2, 4, and 6, and puts a dent in 5 (because some non-food crops can be processed into diesel more easily than any food crop). Point 3 is inescapable today, no matter what you do, so I ignore it.

      The possibility of oceanic aquaculture of algae as feedstock for biodiesel is almost completely unexplored.

      In short, the jury is still out on the subject. Very likely it can be made to work. We just don't know enough yet, and we may have to do some serious engineering after doing some serious science to get it done.

      Whether or not we're capable of either serious science or serious engineering anymore is the subject of debates on Slashdot. I like to think we still can, despite our bumbling around a lot in the process.

    3. Re:frack you - biodiesel is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So make biofuels from agricultural and food production waste. Use fast breeder nukes to desalinate so much water that we turn the desert Southwest into a garden spot. Plaster wind farms all over the Midwest. Mandate standardized, quickly swappable battery pack form factors for cars, and turn the nations gas stations into battery swap stations, simultaneously solving all range anxiety and battery life concerns currently limiting the adoption of electric cars.

    4. Re:frack you - biodiesel is wrong by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      "food scarcity" is only really a problem if you base bio-diesel off of corn. I've heard proposals to base it off of farmed algae, kudzu (a fast growing invasive species in the South), and other plants that aren't used for food. If those pan out, they might provide more bang for the buck than corn and have the side benefit of not affecting food prices. Then again, the corn lobby is powerful and knows how to push their agenda through. (See corn-based gas additives, HFCS subsidized so it is cheaper than sugar, etc.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  42. mod down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you are obviously the voice of experience.

  43. Actually, it's ugly women by kawabago · · Score: 0

    The women in Saudi Arabia are soooooo ugly they are kept under strict control. No one can see them and they aren't allowed out of the country because Saudi men would become laughing stocks if the world knew just how ugly their wives are. Why else the Berka!

  44. Texas does it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Texas does the same thing to high school students.

  45. Not religion problem but cultural by Vince6791 · · Score: 0

    That's because saudi arabia is run by a bunch of degenerate monarchy retards hiding behind Islam to oppress women and it was the same issue with europe from medieval times to early 20th century, even here in the U.S until women's rights were past in the 20th century. Look at Islamic golden age or during the ottomon empire where women were not treated like they are treated in Saudi Arabia, they actually had jobs, businesses, high positions in government, were not accompanied by man, etc... I got a feeling the majority of men in Saudi Arabia who want women oppressed are homosexuals. Same with all these crazy conservative christians in U.S who can't seem to stay away from a women's vagina always trying to control her body, why is that? they are probably homo's, a lot of them were caught either getting their dicks sucked or vice versa. Even the ancient greeks who oppressed women were homo's and child molestors(were having sex with young boys). To hate a women this much you have to be a homo.

  46. They treat women like children by Beeftopia · · Score: 3, Informative

    Women there are treated like children. But we can't get too high and mighty here. Women only got the right to vote in the US in 1920.

    On the other hand, as far as I can tell, never in non-Muslim cultures have women been forced to cover themselves from head to toe, with only their eyes visible. Or not allowed to leave the house without a male custodian. That's a unique curiosity only found in portions of the Muslim world.

    1. Re:They treat women like children by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      White men only got the vote around 1820. Hundreds of thousands of boys died fighting for their country without ever having been allowed to vote. True, we have children voting nowadays, who go into the booth imitatively like toddlers who pretend to mow the lawn or serve tea.

    2. Re:They treat women like children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Women there are treated like children

      All Saudi wives must be under 18, smoking hot and horny. The national favourite bedtime talk is surely "who's your daddy!" Why else would these rules exist?
      Of course, as you can't see how old a person is under the cloth, the same rules had to apply to everyone in the name of equality.

    3. Re:They treat women like children by tbird81 · · Score: 1

      The treat their children like women too.

    4. Re:They treat women like children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, women in those countries have a children's life for their entire lives and don't have to work slave labour for low wages, as we make them do in the west. Carl Marx hated capitalism because we made women (and even children!) work to bring money to their families. Now, most eastern countries allow child labour, and western countries treat children just like arab countries treat women, as untouchable people that shouldn't do hard work (and thus, don't need to study hard, either).

    5. Re:They treat women like children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      only got the right to vote in the US in 1920

      Yyyyeah, but there's been a few changes since that time. Such as the technological revolution. An absolutely, phenominally big change in how the entire planet (with access to electricity and computing) does anything whatsoever.

      So yeah, there's been just a few changes since the 20's. Saudi Arabia is doing this shit in TODAY'S AGE! And they HAVE access to technology obviously! They still do this WITH TODAY'S GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE BASE!

      So no, the two situations are only ever so vaguely related. It's like if you compared a Christmas ham to your front lawn. Both can be eaten... and that's about where the similarities end.

      HAH! captcha: Wenches

    6. Re:They treat women like children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ANd in the US in the 60s, probably up into the 70s, a married woman couldn't get a credit card in her own name. Her husband had to cosign for it.

    7. Re:They treat women like children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To see how wrong you are, look up the old meaning of the word CHAPERONE:

      "Traditionally, a chaperone was an older married or widowed woman accompanying a young woman when men would be present. Her presence was a guarantee of the virtue of the young woman in question."

  47. So, how evil ARE they then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

  48. to the men of Saudi Arabia by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1, Troll

    FUCK YOU.

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:to the men of Saudi Arabia by sageres · · Score: 5, Funny

      You are very courageous behind that keyboard, young master.
      Next time tell this to a Saudi man in a face.

    2. Re:to the men of Saudi Arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did once but he didn't care because he was really drunk.

    3. Re:to the men of Saudi Arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did somebody oink?

    4. Re:to the men of Saudi Arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not the original poster of that comment, but I would be happy to tell it to a Saudi man's face, if I ever meet one. What's he going to do about it? Fuck all, that's what.

    5. Re:to the men of Saudi Arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He'll kill you, and kill your family, and stink up your house.

    6. Re:to the men of Saudi Arabia by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 2

      I would if I weren't so creeped out by this Saudi gent being in a face.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    7. Re:to the men of Saudi Arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is the sole reason Saudi men are respected by slashdotters, which otherwise disrespect everybody else. So maybe their strategy works. Better to be feared than to be loved.

    8. Re:to the men of Saudi Arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of 'em are pudgy and noodle-armed, a fair fight for the average Slashdotter.

    9. Re:to the men of Saudi Arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's so quaint and old-fashioned. These days we just paint those things on bombs and missiles that we drop on them. If they're lucky, they get a chance to see a glimpse of it before being disintegrated.

    10. Re:to the men of Saudi Arabia by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      So, what you are saying here is that if someone wants to express their disdain for someone else's barbaric politics by saying something that properly expresses the depths of thier disdain, they should be fearful of a violent response? Wow, civilization marches on, and thanks for your contribution...

      P. S. Fuck you too.

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
  49. They're just one step from... by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...taking them to the vet and "chipping" them.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:They're just one step from... by Max_W · · Score: 2

      9 million women were burned In Europe in Middle Ages for "witchcraft", i.e. for nothing.

      Millions are women in Europe and the USA are still victims of violence and discrimination each year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_women

      We are far away from congratulating ourselves.

    2. Re:They're just one step from... by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but I hate this train of rationalization:
      If I have bad attribute A, and you have bad attribute A X 1,000,000, then I am not allowed to criticize you for it.

    3. Re:They're just one step from... by Max_W · · Score: 1

      Criticize who? My point is that it should be the patriarchal social system which asserts itself via systematic violence against women. It is still here, globally; both in social relations and mentality.

      Who can change it and does not? Who has education and resources for this?

    4. Re:They're just one step from... by wili · · Score: 1

      The 9 million figure is an exaggeration by an order of magnitude or two. You might want to check out for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt (or a number of other sources - these all discuss how the myth of 9 million deaths originally came to be).

    5. Re:They're just one step from... by Max_W · · Score: 1

      In modern US more that 200 thousand women are sexually assaulted each year http://www.rainn.org/statistics . It is in the country where there is the real police, courts, laws, therapy, etc. About 100% of assaulters are men.

      Besides, many cases are not reported for fear of exposure. It is yet without domestic violence, harassment, etc.

      I mean it is not rare. A figure in millions does not seem unrealistic to me, especially in Middle Ages.

    6. Re:They're just one step from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this different from tracking your spouses cell phone?

    7. Re:They're just one step from... by Alsee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In modern US more that 200 thousand women are sexually assaulted each year http://www.rainn.org/statistics

      No, read it again. It indicates about 200 thousand PEOPLE are sexually assaulted each year.

      About 100% of assaulters are men.

      Factually false.

      If we want to combat sexist prejudiced stereotype bullshit in society, we need combat all of it. And that includes the sexist notion that any man is "lucky" to have sex. The sexist notion that men cannot or do not refuse consent to sex. The sexist notion that men are not raped, and fucked-up definitions of "rape" which categorically deny the possibility of a man being raped (except by another man).

      Lets look at a very recent survey done by the United States Center For Disease Control. It defines "Rape" as attempted or competed forcible penetration of the victim as well as drug/alcohol facilitated completed penetration of the victim. It reports lifetime "rape" rates at about 18.3% of all women and about 1.4% of all men. However this report has a brand new section, a category that has been implicitly excluded for pretty much all previous rape research. It's a category called "made to penetrate". I will remind you that "made to penetrate" does is EXCLUDED from the definition of "rape". The report gives a lifetime rate of 4.8% of all men "made to penetrate".

      And lets be clear on what "made to penetrate" means. I was recently reading a message board which had nothing to do with sexuality where, out of the blue, someone commented on the stereotype that men cannot be rape victims, and posted a request for men to share their stories if they had ever been raped. A completely generic non-sex-related community with a fairly random sampling of male readers. Unsurprisingly most of the replies were anonymous. They included reports including a man raped at gunpoint, a man walking on campus in the dark being tasered by an unknown woman then handcuffed to a tree raped and tasered again to the rapist could remove the handcuffs and run off, multiple reports of men discovering their drink had been drugged and being unable to fight off their attacker, multiple reports of men being threatened with being accused of rape themselves if they did not submit - including a case where a man walked into his bedroom to find a naked woman demanding sex and when he resisted she deliberately scratched his neck and hands and threatening to claim he tried to rape her. The reports just went on and on. Those are just what I recall offhand.

      Not a single one of those incidents qualifies as "rape" in the CDC survey, not a single one of them constitutes "rape" under virtually any rape survey ever done. They fall under the brand new category "made to penetrate"..... because somehow forcible penis-in-vagina sex is not rape when a woman does it. All men are sex-obsessed animals without the ability or right to decline sex. Because any man who gets raped is "lucky" he got to have sex.

      And one notable fact is that not a single one of them reported their rape to the police. The rate of women reporting rape is abysmally low, but it doesn't remotely compare to the effectively ZERO rate of men reporting rape. The social stigma, victim blaming, shaming, and rape-denialism against women is an abomination, but it is as bad or worse for any man attempting to report being raped. Not a single one of the male rape victims reported it to the police.... but there was one case of a male rape victim who tried calling a rape-support hotline. And you know what happened? The person who answered the phone (presumably female) CALLED HIM A LIAR and told him to stop making prank calls. Seriously, how fucked up is that? A fucking RAPE SUPPORT LINE calling a rape victim a liar, saying no you weren't raped and stop fucking calling. Solely because the victim was male. Pure unadulterated sexist ideology and prejudi

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  50. Re:Not True, Saudi Arabia didn't sign UN declarati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if they had, it's not a treaty.

  51. Dear Muslim world: by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    as long as you treat half of your society like cattle, you are never going to have a happy, prosperous, or just culture.

    Yes, I know: "honor," "dignity." Well why don't you let your women take care of that for themselves on their own.

    The Chinese, the Indians, the Americans, the Europeans, they will advance. And you will fester. Because of your poor choices.

    Regards,
    the rest of the world

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:Dear Muslim world: by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      as long as you treat half of your society like cattle, you are never going to have a happy, prosperous, or just culture.

      News flash they don't want it, they're Muslims. They like life to be bad so it fits their "hate life and love death" philosophy,

    2. Re:Dear Muslim world: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is precisely you alone that are treating them like cattle, unarguably so, by calling them that. Tell any woman in any of these countries they are cattle, and see the response.

      While one could certainly argue their situation can and should be improved, your ethnocentric insults just make you part of the problem, not part of the solution.

    3. Re:Dear Muslim world: by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      as long as you treat half of your society like cattle, you are never going to have a happy, prosperous, or just culture.

      Uh, this is Saudi Arabia. I have no idea whether they're happy, I known they're not just, but that prosperous thing...

      (Actualy, looking at it, their per capita GDP is lower than I expected - $21,196 in 2011, better than Taiwan, but not amazingly high. But they're not poor).

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    4. Re:Dear Muslim world: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We honored the shit out of the Native Americans didn't we?

    5. Re:Dear Muslim world: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I know: "honor," "dignity." Well why don't you let your women take care of that for themselves on their own.

      Because men are weak willed, and women corrupt the hearts of men without even meaning to. Thus, we have to keep them hidden so that the Devil doesn't make the men rape them.
      Yes that really is the logic behind it.

    6. Re:Dear Muslim world: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      if you told americans they were fat, you'd get a bunch of denial too

      doesn't change the fact that americans are on average too fucking fat

      i'm sorry you seem to think we need to show sensitivity to the blind stupidity of various cultures

      sometimes the truth is ugly. deal with it. because i'm not certainly going to water down the truth. you play that loser's game

      they treat their women like cattle. it's disgusting. all denial to the contrary is the real part of the problem

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    7. Re:Dear Muslim world: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      we treated the native americans horribly

      or were you trying to get me to deny the obvious in ethnocentric blindness, and therefore this allows middle eastern cultures to deny the obvious?

      is that the way you think things should work?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    8. Re:Dear Muslim world: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      right, another form of blame of the victim and not being responsible for your own actions

      disgusting

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    9. Re:Dear Muslim world: by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The Chinese take care of their women's rights problems in advance.../goingtohell

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    10. Re:Dear Muslim world: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      absolutely, abortion of female fetuses or infanticide of girls in india and china is a huge problem. as bad as how the muslim world treats women? possibly. so your point is well taken

      skewing the sex ratios in india and china is a huge problem those societies really need to fix

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  52. Re:Not True, Saudi Arabia didn't sign UN declarati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, the USA is Muslim?

    http://www.udhr.org/history/question.htm#_Toc397930439

    Because they haven't signed/ratified it completely, just like Somalia.

    Glass houses, stones, etc.

  53. Hmm ... by tqk · · Score: 2

    They're just one step from taking them to the vet and "chipping" them.

    I suspect they may already have gotten to that.

    I've often wondered, after all the US' TLAs have done (South & Central America (United Fruit/Chiquita Banana), Cuba (Bay of Pigs), S. E. Asia (VietNam), The Cold War, ...), why hasn't sufficient provocation been found yet for the US military to roll over Saudi Arabia? Grenada and Panama ranked, so why not SA? They couldn't hope to stop the US. You'd think it would be a drop dead simple (practically bloodless coup even) solution to "The Troubles" in the Middle East. Forget Iran; blow away the House of Saud, and doesn't that area become a lot more friendly for everyone, including Iran and Israel? Doesn't Saudi Arabia have a lot of oil, after all? It'd even pee off Pakistan and Indonesia, woohoo!

    Does Prince Bandar have pics of JFK raping kittens and puppies or something?!?

    --
    "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Hmm ... by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And consider these interesting 9/11 facts:

      o 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian
      o The superstition driving the group is rooted in Saudi Arabia
      o Osama bin Laden - Saudi Arabian
      o Osama's brother in law, Jamal Khalifa - Saudi Arabian - partially bankrolled the 9/11 group
      o Saudi Prince Naif, the interior minister, and Saudi Prince Sultan also partially bankrolled the 9/11 group
      o 28 pages of the 9/11 Joint Inquiry report dealing with Saudi Arabian connections have been censored

      So Bush attacked... Iraq.

      Go figure, eh?

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    2. Re:Hmm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He attacked Afghanistan for 9/11, Iraq was for the mysterious "WMD"s

    3. Re:Hmm ... by sa1lnr · · Score: 0

      "So Bush attacked... Iraq."

      I thought he attacked Afghanistan for 9/11?

    4. Re:Hmm ... by Ltap · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because the Saudi regime hasn't given the US any cause to invade -- it already sells oil cheaply. Remember that the only oil-producing countries the US is unfriendly with are ones that hint that they won't follow every whim of US foreign policy (like Venezuela supplying oil to Cuba).

      --
      Yet Another Tech Blog
      (but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
      http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
    5. Re:Hmm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "interesting 9/11 facts [ ...] So Bush attacked... Iraq."

      Err, no. You are thinking of Afghanistan.

      Two totally different wars for different reasons!

    6. Re:Hmm ... by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      Afghanistan was attacked for harboring Osama Bin Laden. Iraq was attacked for mysterious reasons, but it was implied that "the terrorists" were in Iraq.

    7. Re:Hmm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As interesting as your list o' facts is, it sounds very... conspiracy-theoryish.

      Basically, the first thing that comes to mind when reading your post is the conspiracy theory that Lincoln and his assassin ahd the same number of letters in their names, and there was a pile of other conspiracy type matchings, like dates and numbers and stupid shit like that. Can't recall what president these revolved around... might be JFK or someone else, but anyone who's even vaguely heard of this will know what I'm talking about.

      If you cherry-pick data, you can correlate anything to anything.

      Hell, one of the most commonly-used rebuttals on /. is "correlation is not causation".

    8. Re:Hmm ... by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

      sounds very... conspiracy-theoryish.

      I'm simply pointing out that the actions that were taken don't suit the actual data. Any theory you create from those data points is your own. I didn't offer one. I find it enlightening to look at the data we have, and the actions we take, and compare those with the public narrative. I also find it enlightening to follow the money, in the cui bono sense of "follow."

      To the person who suggested we attacked Iraq over WMDs... Iraq had no WMDs, unless you want to class some old gas shells as WMDs, in which case, ok, they had them, but no, that's no justification for attacking them because they posed zero credible threat.

      To the person who suggested we attacked Afghanistan because of Bin Ladin... that's actually pretty silly. That's like attacking London because some miscreant went to school at the war college. Also, we got Bin Ladin. You'll note we're still playing large-scale military games in Afghanistan.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    9. Re:Hmm ... by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

      Because the Saudi regime hasn't given the US any cause to invade

      That's certainly the public narrative. That it doesn't match up with the data — even a little bit — is what I find interesting.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    10. Re:Hmm ... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Perusing the statements of the US administration at the instantiation of each effort, It's clear that both wars were pursued under the aegis of a general "get the terrorist" mentality that was the product of 9/11.

      Iraq stands out in that it didn't even have a tenuous connection to 9/11. Afghanistan... well, again, the public narrative was "get Bin Ladin", which you'll note was not accomplished by warring on Afghanistan, and further, that having gotten him, we didn't stop warring.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    11. Re:Hmm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed Afghanistan. First he attacked Afghanistan, because the Taliban refused to accept Cheney's 'take it or we bomb you back into the stone age' offer regarding the Unocal pipeline.

    12. Re:Hmm ... by Ltap · · Score: 1

      It depends on what you consider a cause. The US government doesn't care about human rights abuses; that much is clear from its long, long foreign policy record. What the US government cares about is whether the Saudis will "play nice" and do what they want them to. The minute the Saudis don't, the Saudis become official enemies the same way Saddam Hussein did when he stopped "playing nice".

      --
      Yet Another Tech Blog
      (but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
      http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
    13. Re:Hmm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought he attacked Afghanistan for 9/11?

      Yes, but remember that "Dubya's" ratings were in the pooper then, even Republicans were getting fed-up with how STUPID the man was, and there's nothing like a "little war" to perk-up a Presidents ratings.

      It took 9/11 to turn that around for him.

      Remember too, that the intelligence was that the attackers trained in Afghanistan (a country with no government) before coming to the US, so we sent in rangers and special forces and took-out the dominant muscle, the Taliban. And were, not insignificantly, greeted as liberators.

      If we'd then crushed the opium trade (at the time, Afghanistan was the world's #1 producer of Opium and Heroin) along with the Warlords that ran it, we could have then trained a government, army, and police force, and sent in businesses to help the Afghans to exploit their natural resources (mostly precious gems, from what I understand) and could have left there LONG AGO.

      With that little military adventure seemed over before it even had a chance to start, and knowing that 3 day wars don't do much for his public opinion, he turned his hungry little eyes towards the country next-door that had been blockaded for years.

      Egged on by his religious-extremest friends and advisers (who [still] want[ed] to kick-start the rapture), he decided to just occupy Afghanistan, and attack Iraq so we could occupy them also. (You know, the more [wars and occupations], the merrier!)

      Except that didn't turn out to be the 6 month war and occupation that they claimed it would be, and we've been there ever since. And we got to blacken the reputation of the US by engaging in torture in our quest to find non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction and non-existent terrorists, while at the same time putting the-lie to our perceived invulnerability and omniscience that much of the 2nd and 3rd worlds believed we had.

      While in the mean time, the Afghans started getting pissed off, the Taliban found (one of) their collective testicles, and the Warlords and the Opium trade they controlled started doing their thing again, causing us to loose nearly ALL the good-will that we'd managed to engender in the population, and sending Afghanistan nearly back to the condition we'd found it in. And we continued to ignore the situation until we found ourselves no longer able to even walk around our own military bases safely. By the time that "Dubya" left office, Afghanistan was once again that largest supplier of Opium and Heroin in the world, actually peaking in 2007. (Also the top producer of Marijuana and Hashish) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan

      This is what happens when you run an Administration and a War on lies, self-deception, and attempt to force world-events to conform to your political and religious agendas.

      Kinda like what happened to the Republicans in this last election.

    14. Re:Hmm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that a major reason the Saudi connection was ignored, was because the muckraker, Michael Moore, got involved. His taint left everyone with doubt that it was a legitimate complaint.

    15. Re:Hmm ... by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      Go figure? It's as obvious as the nose on your face: Saddam was exporting oil in contravention of Opec. You don't do that and live. The rest was bullshit pretext, and Bush and his cabinet should all be in prison. But I have a much better idea: repudiate the treaty banning breeder reactors, implement the draft to build them, and in 20 years, we won't need any imported oil. Then we start exporting our technology to oil poor nations so they can have cheap energy too. Badda boom, badda bing: world peace!

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    16. Re:Hmm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until the next natural disaster / human error event that causes another fukushima/chernobyl thereby releasing massive amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere and polluting/poisoning the environment. And before some chucklefuck goes for the old coal canard I invite them to swim off the coast of dai ichi and eat some local produce while the goofy assed minister in Japan who is obviously a slashdotter tells them that a smile will help prevent radiation sickness (search for it yourself you [citation needed] fags)

      After which shrimp postured pant-shitting neckbeards will decry how this is going to set back their beloved nuclear industry and cause us all to turn off our overclocked beowulf clusters during peak hours.

      I hope all you "nuclear solves everything" people die in a fucking fire...an atomic fire...and you have GRIDS.

  54. The Statue Of Liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US either offers citizenship to these women or it needs to send that statue back to France.

  55. Islam is seriosly f#cked up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no other explanation.

  56. Democracy is a Religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quote
    We won the war a long time ago and should have come home a long time ago. Unfortunately, we are holding fast to the fantasy of a liberal democracy in a country that has a problem with women going to school. They're simply not ready for self rule and the U.S. And Europe are both too uncomfortable with colonialism to spend the time and money necessary to get them ready.
    Quote

    Democracy is a religion. It has it's own goals and crusades: women's equality, women's empowerment, It's great mortal sins it fights against: male (not just men) rulership at home, pedophile marraige with little girls, males ruling over girls, and it's own churches: schools, and enforcement of indoctrination at those churches(schools) by jailing the parents if they don't send them or taking the children themselves.

    Democracy is an enemy religion against males (not men: men are the few males women like). It is just like islam, judiasm, christianity, bhuddism in that it has it's own laws and seeks converts. It believes it has the right to force all males to obey it's princaples and beliefs (even though the beliefs of Democracy run against what is to benifit males (other religions do aswell)).

    Can't you allow one country to have males very happily marrying cute sweet little girls? Keeping the girls as servants, not attending your temple/school every day? Afghanistan is one of the few places that, allegedly, they marry young raped girls to the man who raped her (as commanded in Deuteronomy 22 28-29 (hebrew) (and yes this includes pedophillia with girls: read the hebrew). Let men be king in one place or a few places on earth, please.

    Can you do that?
    No you can't.

    It's against your pro-woman anti-male religion of Democracy.
    Deuteronomy not Democracy. Defeat Democracy. It is a religion that is evil to males (and good for women).

    1. Re:Democracy is a Religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how is having equality pro/anti either side?

  57. Re:Not True, Saudi Arabia didn't sign UN declarati by Jessified · · Score: 1

    My feeling is that in the UN, each country should get a number of votes based on the proportion of free people in the population that has real say in said country's government (based on some standard set of checks, but mostly based on whether they can vote in honest elections). In a government like China, that would mean they would only get a tiny fraction of a vote, based on the small minority of high ranking government officials who get to choose how China actually operates. The same would be true in countries like Iran that hold mostly fraudulent elections.

    Well established verifiable democracies would have a lot more influence in the UN than dictatorships.

    The best part is that countries like China can't realistically complain about not having a voice proportional to their people when they can't truly say they represent those people. If they want a democratic say in how the planet is run, then they have to offer that same right to the people in their country.

  58. What's the problem? by krisamico · · Score: 1

    Any upstanding Arab has right to keep tabs on the chattel. It has always been thus. All we propose is use of these electronic thingamajiggies and intarweb made by you infidels to automizate the process. Whycome you have problem?

  59. Where? by dohzer · · Score: 1

    Where can I get one of these for my wife?

  60. Where is Amnesty (not-so) Internaitonal now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find it hilarious tat Amnesty and other similar non-sense organizations claim to be the voice of the obressed but at the same time turn their backs on the real issues like this. Instead, they concentrate on issues such as educated European women not getting the same compensation, domestic abuse of women in Europe (ignoring domestic abuse of men) or the rights of lesbians in the most tolerate countries in the world.

    Is this really the Amnesty today?

    1. Re:Where is Amnesty (not-so) Internaitonal now? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      I find it hilarious tat Amnesty and other similar non-sense organizations claim to be the voice of the obressed but at the same time turn their backs on the real issues like this. Instead, they concentrate on issues such as educated European women not getting the same compensation, domestic abuse of women in Europe (ignoring domestic abuse of men) or the rights of lesbians in the most tolerate countries in the world.

      Is this really the Amnesty today?

      http://www.amnesty.org/en/ai_search?keywords=saudi+arabia&op=Search

      Gives me:

      http://www.amnesty.org/en/womens-rights

      Support women in Saudi Arabia

      In Saudi Arabia, women cannot travel, undertake paid work or higher education, or marry without a male guardian’s permission. From June 2011, scores of Saudi Arabian women supported a campaign against the ban on female drivers by getting behind the wheel. Some were arrested and made to sign pledges not to repeat the offence and at least one woman tried and sentenced to 10 lashes.

      Why do you think Amnesty is ignoring this?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
  61. Respect their diversity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's respect diversity here!

    The rights of Observant Muslims to track their women should be respected, as well as their rights to circumcise their daughters, and behead homosexuals.

    If you disagree with this you are a racist bigot and just like Hitler!

  62. Re:Not True, Saudi Arabia didn't sign UN declarati by jrumney · · Score: 1

    Muslim countries didn't sign UN declaration of Human Rights because they perceived it as not compatible with Islam.

    Wikipedia says otherwise:

    The Universal Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly on 10 December 1948 by a vote of 48 in favour, 0 against, with eight abstentions: the USSR, Ukrainian SSR, Byelorussian SSR, People's Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, People's Republic of Poland, Union of South Africa, Czechoslovakia and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

    Among the 48 nations that voted in favour: Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Syria and Turkey.

  63. FFS, invade them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just do it already.

  64. As if women were alot of hardwork aleady. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given the crap men have to put up with from women already, this increase in paper work and administration is central government gone mad. Let them leave already.

  65. Not just women... by ryzvonusef · · Score: 2

    ALL dependants are covered: women, Children (both boys and girls) *and* all workers whose work visa you have given.

    If they are on your ID card (women and children don't get separate ID cards) or their Passport (as their "kafeel" caretaker, or visa giver, as it were), you need the Saudi man's permission to leave, and they will now be informed of it.

    I think this system was made for the "worker" part of the category in mind; they want to know where their slaves^H^H^H^H^H^H are going, and if they are escaping. Poor labourers are practically indentured slaves, kept in live via the sword of heavy debt; I have know people try to escape by leaving everything behind with just the clothes on their backs. This is to prevent that.

    Make of it as you will.

    --
    I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
  66. A modest proposal to re-establish balance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can do something about it. The US and the EU immigration could impose on all Saudi Arabia men the obligation to produce a letter signed by the mother or by the wife.

  67. They call that "sophomoric idealism" now by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Nobody gives a shit anymore, sadly. Hell it takes something as bad as Syria to even get those sanctions and embargoes these days.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  68. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, let me get this straight... We condemn other places and countries for this same BS, but them say " Oh, sure, you guys can treat women how you want as long as you sell us Oil" ?

    Reason number 23285 for hating the US / UN.

  69. And just like Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And just like Christianity is the religion of forgiveness and turning the other cheek, helping the poor and doing good works.

  70. OK, so the parents get genital mutilation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because the parents voluntarily agree doesn't mean the child voluntarily did.

  71. Patently False by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry but ALL religion is insidious and evil. It is a means of control for the unintelligent and mentally lazy.

    This glib little sound bite may have become the popular trend on Slashdot, but it is patently false. Buddhism, Sikhism and others are indeed truly peaceful religions that, though they may or may not be misguided, are not insidious or evil.

  72. it is pretty simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. citizens of countries that support(whether it be foreign aid or even just business) saudi arabia are also liable, as their government works on their behalf. or
    2. said governments no longer represent the people, and therefore must be destroyed.
    *choose wisely*

  73. It's ok honey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm just adding LoJack to your body.....

  74. Engineer with issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I knew a fellow engineer that did that to his wife here in the states. I told her to mess with him by going to the bar for a couple of hours, then hang out in the motel lobby.....

  75. Mod parent up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there was ever an insightful comment on /., this is one. Posting as AC. I am seeing my own country being taken over by muslims in this exact manner. What I never understand is how can you call a person a patriot or even just a simple good citizen if their 'first' loyalty is to their fellow muslims regardless of where they are. Now I live in a different country (first world), and even here I routinely see Pak and Bangladeshi muslims who are just as backward as they were in their homelands.

    I am not supporting xenophobia. But all ideology must be tempered with commonsense.

    "No culture that doesn't preserve itself has ever survived, big surprise there. ". Indeed.

  76. The WTO make divestment illegal in 1999. by bd580slashdot · · Score: 1

    The WTO made divestment illegal in 1999.

    The "Massachusetts Burma Procurement Law" is one of the early cases.

    WTO rules prohibit the use of environmental, human rights or labor practices to be considered as criteria in awarding public contracts.

    Yep. We've entered into treaties that allow private corporations to challenge and overturn democratically enacted laws using secret courts.

    I participated in the 1999 WTO protests in Seattle.
    You geeks know about WIPO right?

  77. Why is this controversial? by choke · · Score: 1

    I thought we were pro-property rights?

    --
    "No good deed goes unpunished"
  78. War on Women by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now this is a REAL war on women, not the vapor war that Obama's minions bitched about.

  79. Worse than slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Women in some of the conservative Moslem countries are treated worse than slaves.

    We in the West need to find ways to cut off their source of funding (oil) ASAP. We need to make the entire basis of their economy worthless.

    I have great respect for the Moslems I know here in the U.S. They're generally nice people and even if a tad stiff.
    But the ones in their home countries, the enslave their wives, sisters, mothers, and daughters, are TOO LOW TO LIVE.

  80. sick. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its not about safety... well mostly not. in the states theres a case going on about a student refusing to wear a tracking
    device as is an experimental policy (the intent can easily be construed as keeping kids safe / in school)

    this is hoarding of power. tracking people is wrong. women are people. tracking women is wrong.

    1. Re:sick. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Women are not people in Saudi Arabia.

  81. their country, their issues... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    their country, their issues.

  82. India by NewYork · · Score: 1

    And India is 4th most dangerous place in the world for women.
    It is only a little better than war-ravaged Afghanistan and Congo.
    http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/india-is-fourth-most-dangerous-place-in-the-world-for-women-poll/1/141639.html

  83. Indians? by NewYork · · Score: 1

    India is an uncivilized nation for your girl child.
    http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/india-is-fourth-most-dangerous-place-in-the-world-for-women-poll/1/141639.html
    1. Every 22 minutes a rape.
    2. The conviction rate is below 25%.
    3. Police refuse to register victim's complaint.
    4. Insane politicians are saying gang-rape is consensual sex.
    5. Rapist family members visit victim's house to show off their caste=hegemony.
    http://ncrb.gov.in/CD-CII2011/cii-2011/Chapters.htm
    http://www.tehelka.com/story_main54.asp?filename=Ne061012Dalit.asp
    http://www.firstpost.com/india/a-rape-every-22-mins-what-makes-us-so-complacent-489080.html

  84. Texas does this too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here in Texas, we do this to our high school students. We force them to wear RFID tags, track them, and email their parents if they are now where they are supposed to be.

  85. Cultural inertia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If poverty causes religion, how then do you explain the wealthy Saudis who flew themselves into the twin towers?

    One, OP is not saying that "poverty causes religion". He is arguing something completely different.

    This is not because of religion, race or any of the other stupid non-explanations - it is simply because of wealth and power. Freedom, democracy, tolerance and so on tend to seem like luxury items when you can barely find enough food or water each day.

    What he is saying is that those who are poor can't afford "luxuries" of "freedom, democracy, tolerance" - leaving them without knowledge and understanding of those concepts once they broke out of poverty.

    And two - that is where the answer to your question lies.
    Just try finding a Saudi who's grandfather DIDN'T have to ride for 10 days every morning just to find water for his breakfast tea.
    The entire Arabian peninsula is a study in what happens when you take neolithic, tribal or even familial cultures, put them in a desert, oppress them by various global powers for centuries - and then usher them into 20th century, tell them that they are now "nations", give them all the money in the world - and then play a game of cold war chess with them as pawns for a couple of generations.

    They don't know nor do they understand "freedom, democracy, tolerance" in a modern sense - but they do know wealth and power.
    It's just that they are still thinking like their grandfathers who had none of either - it's what people will kill you for unless you kill them first.

    It's the fucking desert. You didn't come there for the view.
    You're either family (tribe), someone running away from something or a robber coming to take from family what little they have and probably kill them while you're at it. Or make them slaves.

    In their collective cultural consciousness they are still thinking like poor tribal people, still nursing blood feuds of their grandfathers - only now they have all the money in the world, which they've gotten with zero effort.
    And all they've gotten from it is more to lose or have stolen and a realization how poor they were before and how rich everyone else was.

    THAT is why they fly themselves into skyscrapers.
    Because those people in those skyscrapers are robbers and friends of the family's enemies, coming in the night to slit their father's throats and make their mothers and sisters poor slaves once more.
    They are living out the myths of their poor grandfathers along with their blood feuds.