Starting next week, death penalty for gays and adulterers

[Revoltingest]

But why? It was not just to be nice.
Whether anyone in state dept thought it
could possibly work is a bit irrelevant.
The strategic goal was to mess them
and keep them weak.

There are, of course, additional motives.
But it's not our job to fix their governments.
I oppose that motive (& others).

 

[columbus]

And, ironically, Muslims and their SJW supporters will doubtless continue to object when Islam and Muslim culture are described as primitive and barbaric.

Tom

 

[sooda]

The size of the country is irrelevant, this is barbaric, medieval and should be condemned by all countries. Impose sanctions, call in their ambassadors, chuck them out ot the UN, etc etc.
But watch the 'west' do nothing.

I doubt this new rule will stand. Its very extreme even for a conservative Muslim country.

 

[Nakosis]

Pbbft! My wife passed the "death penalty for adultery..." the day we were married.

I did read it mentioned in the Muslim Hadith the death penalty for adultery by stoning.

Islam: Adultery and Stoning

Fortunately?! this was revised to a penalty of one hundred lashes at some point.

 

[Father Heathen]

There was a strong sentiment to impose democracy
on these ****hole countries. I'd rather not.

Some cultures (due to being wholly toxic) are simply not compatible with it. It would have to occur after a significant social shift and further development.

 

[Father Heathen]

And, ironically, Muslims and their SJW supporters will doubtless continue to object when Islam and Muslim culture are described as primitive and barbaric.

Tom

That's one thing that I find to be completely bizarre. SJW's staunchly oppose homophobia and misogyny, yet exempt muslims from their judgement and condemnation. Why do they get a pass, especially considering such nations are among the worse offenders? If the shoe were on the other foot, the SJWs would be hanged from a crane.

 

[columbus]

I doubt this new rule will stand. Its very extreme even for a conservative Muslim country.

It's not just a rule, it's the law.
Frankly, I doubt that it is actually intended to be enforced, per se. It's probably for public consumption, coupled with the possibility of using it against political "undesirables" when possible.

But, OTOH, I am also confident that lots and lots of people in conservative cultures are perfectly fine with executing gay men. Just because a country doesn't have such medieval, primitive, morality doesn't mean people in those countries don't.

Religionists are the main cause of dragging ugly ethics into the 21st century. It's why I would be OK if religion died out. The damage outweighs the benefits.
Tom

 

[BSM1]

I did read it mentioned in the Muslim Hadith the death penalty for adultery by stoning.

Islam: Adultery and Stoning

Fortunately?! this was revised to a penalty of one hundred lashes at some point.

Please don't give her any ideas....

 

[Shad]

Time for the UN to function as a UN?

Never will happen. Half the nations in the UN would be kicked out if real standards were used.

 

[BSM1]

The size of the country is irrelevant, this is barbaric, medieval and should be condemned by all countries. Impose sanctions, call in their ambassadors, chuck them out ot the UN, etc etc.
But watch the 'west' do nothing.

Sooo...now you want us to invade....

 

[Audie]

Never will happen. Half the nations in the UN would be kicked out if real standards were used.

zactly

 

[Nakosis]

Please don't give her any ideas....

Sorry,
But I can see this working out well in some sadomasochistic relationships.

 

[Altfish]

Sooo...now you want us to invade....

Did I say invade?

 

[Audie]

Sooo...now you want us to invade....

Get the tune right

 

[BSM1]

Did I say invade?

So what should we do?

 

[Father Heathen]

So what should we do?

It's hard for western countries to do much of anything when they're such close buddies with other nations that have similar laws and practices. An example; the relationship between The U.S. and Saudi Arabia.

 

[Altfish]

So what should we do?

Refuse to buy any oil would be a good start.

 

[Jumi]

And, ironically, Muslims and their SJW supporters will doubtless continue to object when Islam and Muslim culture are described as primitive and barbaric.

It's imperative that we keep separated those that are barbaric and those who are not. Painting with a wide brush isn't useful, but theocracies and those flirting with it tend toward the inhumane, but have a separate set of rules for their rich and powerful. A secular democracy might not be the best, but at the very least it's the best we can achieve today so we should at least safeguard it in our own homelands.

 

[Jumi]

Refuse to buy any oil would be a good start.

An iron-fisted and brutal regime is often good for business interests, so it seems unlikely to happen.

 

[Revoltingest]

An iron-fisted and brutal regime is often good for business interests, so it seems unlikely to happen.

Good relations are also useful to avoid driving the country into the arms
of our enemy. There are pluses & minuses in dividing up countries into
friends & enemies based upon internal policies we like or dislike.
How far do we want to go with Brunei....
Attack & force regime change?
Economic embargo?
Those tactics have really served us poorly over the last century.
We should be thoughtful, & consider all possible consequences.