Saudi Woman Goes Out In Public Without Islamic Veil . . . Critics Demands Her Execution

nintchdbpict0002862353491-e1480673820788The medieval Islamic system enforced in Saudi Arabia is on display this week after Malak Al Shehri decided to do what most women around the world do without a second’s thought: she went out into public without covering herself up with a veil or hijab. Malak then posted herself on a public street. The result has been volcanic with some supporting her courage but many others calling for her to be beheaded or “thrown to the dogs.” It is a reminder of the plight of women in the Kingdom and other Islamic countries imposing Sharia law.

A student from Dammam using the name of Sara Ahmed shared the shot showing Malak wearing a black coat over a calf-length dress. Sara captained the picture in a way that captured the absurdity of the situation for modern women: “A Saudi woman went out yesterday without an Abaya or a hijab in Riyadh Saudi Arabia and many Saudis are now demanding her execution.”

Sara said Malak received so many death threats that she was forced to delete her account.

All women in Saudi Arabia – local and foreign – are legally required to wear an abaya or traditional full-body covering. Foreign women are exempted from the mandatory headscarf – or hijab.

These young women (and those fighting for the right to drive and leave their homes without male approval) are the Saudi “Seneca Falls” generation of courageous human rights advocates. We will continue to follow and highlight their struggle. They are a reminder that the rights that we take for granted remain only aspirations for many around the world.

100 thoughts on “Saudi Woman Goes Out In Public Without Islamic Veil . . . Critics Demands Her Execution”

  1. Today in America the media is giving Trump a dose of criticizm for “speaking” to some president of Taiwain because it might offend the Communist Chinese officials. Jeso. The Communists speak to Raul Castro every day. Cuba is on our doorstep. They can speak to Castro but we cannot speak to any leader of Taiwan. And the American media eats this apCray and spews it out.

  2. The media in America loves Castro. Americans forget. Here is an excerpt from a web site that discusses his brutality:

    Fidel Castro’s firing squads in Cuba
    Fidel Castro is often portrayed as the “benevolent” dictator of Cuba, such portrayals are unarguably wrong. The evidence of his bloodthirsty and murderous nature is unequivocal and available for anyone who wants to know the truth. Unfortunately such evidence is rarely discussed by the news media and at schools. There’s perhaps no more grizzly atrocity committed by Fidel Castro than the firing squads which he implemented. Beginning as a rebel, before he would eventually take power in Cuba, Fidel Castro used firing squad executions to enforce discipline, punish followers deemed disloyal or intimidate potential opposition. At the beginning of the Castro regime there was a reign of terror typical of revolutions in which the firing squad was used prominently but the executions continued for decades.

    The Cuba Archive which documents deaths and disappearances resulting from Fidel Castro’s Cuban revolution has documented 3,615 firing squad executions conducted by the Cuban state since Castro took over on January 1, 1959.

    Opponents of the death penalty should be horrified at the amount of death Fidel Castro and his accomplices have directly caused. It’s important to note that in Revolutionary Cuba there are none of the due process guarantees found in a western-style democracy. Most of Castro’s firing squad victims were afforded only a perfunctory show trial the outcome of which was predetermined, some didn’t even get that. Ernesto “Ché” Guevara is a popular culture icon, his face adorns posters and t-shirts around the globe. Most people don’t realize that he was Fidel Castro’s chief enforcer and had a personal hand in at least 100 firing squad executions, often delivering the coup de grace personally. In response to questions about Castro’s firing squads Guevara once said, “To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution. And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate.”

  3. And the media was criticizing Trump today for speaking with the head of Taiwan because that might offend the Communist China dorks.
    And we are friends with Saudi Arabia?
    This world is a mess.

    No more wars. Bring the boys home. No more hurry on down to Vietnam. It ain’t one, two three anymore. Get the hell out of the muddle east.

    I just got released from the solitary ward. They thought I was wacko for yakking on the computer. They may take this computer away from me.


    1. Western values, or the lack thereof, as practiced in the West, is incompatible with Islamic values.

      It’s really just kind of how you look at it. You say to-mah-to, I say to-may-to. I would not want to live in an Islamic country, but the truth is, far too many Western women are just strung-out immature whores, with bad tats and STDs. It makes me very unhappy to have to say that.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. The right of bodily autonomy gives every woman and man the sole authority over their body. If a woman or man wants to sell her or his body to pleasure others that is their right. If a woman or man wants to freely provide her or his sexual favors to others, that too is their right. If a woman or man wants to have tattoos inked on their body that is their right.

        Can’t imagine why you would not want to live in an Islamic country given the self-righteous, moralistically archaic attitude you exhibit. Such an attitude would be a natural and flawless fit with the barbaric moral code practiced under Sharia law. Or perhaps you should have been born during the age of Old Testament Mosaic law. Of course you are free to state your value judgements on these matters. But such views are priggish, prudish, and rather retrograde, more fitting for a place where women are viewed as nothing more than the property of men.

        1. The right of bodily autonomy gives every woman and man the sole authority over their body.

          There is no such right, and none has ever been recognized in the occident outside the salons of idiot-roues.

          1. On the contrary, the right of bodily autonomy exists, whether it has been recognized or not. It is generally considered a human right. It is why, for example, you can not be compelled to give blood or donate an organ or tissue or be forced to submit to medical treatment provided you have the mental capacity to make an informed choice. You seem to have the odd notion that the only rights I or anyone has are the rights that the state says I have.

            This right is recognized in the Constitution of Ireland, which mandates that “you have the right not to have your body or personhood interfered with.”

            There is an implied recognition of the right in the right to privacy recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in several decisions, including Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and Roe v. Wade (1973). Furthermore, a Pennsylvania court ruled in 1978 (McFall v. Shimp) that a person cannot be forced to donate bone marrow, even if such a donation would save another person’s life.

  4. And we tend to think of Fidel Castro as a tyrant, he could learn from our most favored Arab ally. He provided housing, education and health care, reduced the infant mortality rate to one of the lowest in the world. Why don’t place the same embargo on the Saudi’s, do you think oil or investments in US politicians have anything to with it?

    1. We do not put an embargo on the Saudis because reasons of state do not even suggest it and because we have a rough and ready sense of the possible in Saudi Arabia.

      Cuba, by contrast, is the most retrograde country in Latin America. It made itself quite willingly into the client of a hostile foreign power, stole the property of American businesses, engaged in mass executions (which Saudi Arabia does not), prohibited emigration except to a few, armed and organized insurgencies or terror campaigns in at least seven other countries in Latin America, and provided troop muscle to advance Soviet designs in Africa. The country’s economic development was also truncated and it remained a monocrop economy into the 1980s.

      Cuba was a comparatively affluent Latin American country in 1958, behind the Southern Cone but not much else. The plant and equipment in Cuba looks amazing similar to what it did 60 years ago. What were you telling us all he ‘provided’ ?

      1. “We do not put an embargo on the Saudis because reasons of state do not even suggest it and because we have a rough and ready sense of the possible in Saudi Arabia.”

        Now there’s a rationale and a half. Too funny. Keep ’em comin’, Toads! You end up on C-Span someday.

        1. Now there’s a rationale and a half. Too funny. Keep ’em comin’, Toads! You end up on C-Span someday.

          If you had a serious response, we’d hear it.

            1. All my remarks are pro bono publico. You’re an advocate for crappy causes and have no defensible ideas. Not everyone is like that.

                  1. For anyone who doesn’t know, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 repealed the ban on domestic government propaganda, a ban that had been in place since 1948 under the Smith-Mundt Act, “which explicitly forbids information and psychological operations aimed at influencing U.S. public opinion.”

                    “‘Today, the military is more focused on manipulating news and commentary on the Internet, especially social media, by posting material and images without necessarily claiming ownership,’ reported the Post.”


                    In other words, the government can fund manipulation of news and commentary on the Internet. That’s why our MSM is so pro-government, other than the fact that there FCC licenses may be threatened otherwise. Beware.

                    1. US propaganda or the MSM is having a similar effect to that which state controlled media had in Russia except for our speed of drying things out behind the ears. People are (agonizingly slowly) becoming suspicious of all news. Verification – if possible at all – comes by comparison of multiple sources and applying common sense to contradictory main stream statements. Comparison of multiple sources is a wash using msm since they receive their talking points from the same source, but has nevertheless been possible due to the internet mainly. Unlikely to continue in the same way for much longer. The public’s growing and very justified dissatisfaction with the MSM just may have cost Hillary her coronation. True or not, the powers that be are not feeling the warmth for a neutral internet and I suspect Trump, for his own reasons, will go along with that quietly or very publicly as suits the moment.

                    2. I hadn’t really thought of increased regulation of the internet, but it wouldn’t surprise me in light of every search we make and every address we go to already being stored. With the new cabinet picks thus far, it sure looks like we’re in for a dark four years of increased infringement on our privacy among many other problems. And, if Congress can pass the NDAA under Obama, just think what will get passed Trump, the elitist in populist clothing.

                    3. For anyone who doesn’t know, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 repealed the ban on domestic government propaganda, a ban that had been in place since 1948 under the Smith-Mundt Act, “which explicitly forbids information and psychological operations aimed at influencing U.S. public opinion.”

                      Why should 3d rate lawyers have all the fun?

                    4. That is well pointed out BB. The war in the Internet has already begun. You have probably seen the House bill that passed that requires investigation into the so-called “Russian Influence” of the past election. We’ll probably see McCarthyism on steriods from here, and all of us on this blog who have questioned things maybe be brought to task for them in the future. I’m sure there is a deep file on all of us–every search, every phone call, just about anything needed to create a useful scenario that can be used against (sounds paranoid, but I think we know this is actually standard operating procedure now). We’ll have to be vigilant in protection of the Internet as a free speech tool. As we have seen demonstrated, the whole covert intelligence program is meant to control us in the end, not protect us.

  5. She looks chic and lovely.

    Change has to come from within, but the reality is that these brave young women are risking their very lives in their fight for equality. I applaud her, and I’m scared to death for her.

    The hard Left has a paradox. They ascribe evil tendencies to anyone who disagrees with their political agenda, and of course uses the ubiquitous “war on women” and now the “war on seniors” rhetoric. However, they call for women to wear the roosari or hijab out of solidarity with Islamic women. They take an increasingly anti-semitic pro-Palestinian anti-Israeli viewpoint, such as the BLM. They label anyone who criticizes the abuses of human rights, especially women and gays, under Sharia Law as Islamophobic. If you voice grave concern about the mass importation of people who murder gays and call for the execution of women for showing their hair and ankles, you are a racist, bigot, Islamophobe. The real existential threat, apparently, is anyone who does not identify as Progressive, NOT the people calling for this lovely woman’s death for showing her calf.

    And meanwhile, our government does take a Machiavellian approach to the UAE. They abuse human rights in a very similar fashion to ISIS, although they are not as militant nor expanding. And yet, we really, really want military access to the hostile ME. So we look the other way, court them, fawn over them, share our technology, arm them, give them anti-ballistic missile defenses, ignore that they fund terrorism…We are a conflicted people regarding the Middle East.

    I have to admit, I’ve been conflicted about people from the Old Country ME. I’ve been to the homes of my modern Muslim friends thousands of times. Adored their extended family. But many of the ones who’ve emigrated from the ME say the most outrageously bad things about Jews and gays. Just…stunningly bad. I won’t repeat what was said. I tried so hard to change minds. Brought evidence against the more absurd claims, reasoned with them. I don’t think I moved the needle a millimeter. I was entirely ineffective against brainwashing from birth, and I was coming from a friendly place. Changing hearts and minds is apparently not my forte. In many ways, these were good people. They had value. They loved their family. But there is no black and white, good or bad, especially in the ME. There are fabulous family centered people who have been, nonetheless, brainwashed since birth about honor, women, gays, and Jews. Anyone raised in such an atmosphere, like the lady in the article, who pushes back against “common knowledge” has my respect and admiration. The overwhelming majority of other people accept the brainwashing without question.

    So I can understand our government’s conflicted view on the human rights abusers of the ME. Our liaisons may be good people in many ways, but the reality is that drowning daughters in swimming pools for slights on the family honor is an accepted occurrence. We are going to need to make a decision at some point about how much tolerance we can have for human rights abusers, compared with our concern for geopolitical stability. It’s not an easy policy decision, but many of us tire of funding abusive countries.

    And from my perspective, I have serious concerns about refugees from the ME. They are different from those who choose to immigrate here, those rare people who don’t like the totalitarianism of Sharia Law. They want more freedom. They have a higher chance of folding into Western values. But real refugees are unwilling migrants. They have been chased from their homes by war. They don’t necessarily value or even want to become Westernized. And as I experienced, those who see no problem with the brainwashing against Jews, women, and gays, see no need to change. And suddenly they are thrust into the West, where women “flaunt” their equality and bodies, and they come into contact with gay and Jewish people. And we expect them to suddenly become Westernized because their feet are on this side of the border.

    1. And meanwhile, our government does take a Machiavellian approach to the UAE. They abuse human rights in a very similar fashion to ISIS, although they are not as militant nor expanding.

      Rubbish. The UAE is a tranquil Arab state with some shortcomings. Their principal shortcomings have little to do with violent abuse of people minding their own business. You’re not going to get burned alive in Dubai for looking cross-eyed at some paramilitary.

      1. When my father was in Saudi Arabia on behalf of our government, he was taken to Chop Chop Square. They executed two gay men by beheading in front of him.

        Saudi Arabia is not expanding, trying for world domination or to bring about the End of Days like ISIS. But other than that, their attitudes towards human rights are quite similar. Plus it funnels a massive amount of money towards terrorism. Don’t believe me? Then go to Saudi Arabia, step off the plane, and shout, “I’m a gay Jew!”

        Good luck.

        The reality is, that gay men are killed by law in UAE. Women may be drowned in their pools or if they’re lucky, like the Princesses, they may be put on permanent house arrest. They may not leave the country without the written approval of the male in charge of them. They may not drive a car. They may be whipped for being found in the company, fully clothed, of a male who is not related to them.

        The reality is, there are many nice people in Saudi Arabia. And what they consider normal behavior, and normal crimes, are very different than in the West.


          Plus it funnels a massive amount of money towards terrorism. Don’t believe me?

          No. The actual complaint is not that the Saudi state supports terrorism, but that it’s otiose about closing down philanthropies which launder money for terror organizations and that it breeds terrorists through madrasses it finances (not through direct recruitment, but through advancing a particular mindset).

          The number of executions in Saudi Arabia in recent years has bounced around a set point of 82 per year, or a rate of about 0.3 per 100,000. The homicide rate in SA is supposedly 0.8 per 100,000, so the number of executions is almost certainly not exceeding the number convicted of homicide. The number of executions is indicative of penal severity, but it is not a scandal per se. The reason for which some people are executed may be.

        2. The reality is, that gay men are killed by law in UAE.

          The number of executions in the UAE bounces around a set point of 1 per year, for a rate of 0.0167 per 100,000. The homicide rate in the UAE is 0.7 per 100,000. There’s a long list of crimes for which there is a notional death penalty and supposedly several score people on death row, but the rate of executions is so meagre that most of them will die by natural causes before they’re ever put in front of a firing squad.

  6. Hmmm. This could be viewed as a form of the Bene Gesserit Humanity Test, to wit:

    In Dune, the Bene Gesserit tested ordinary people to find the humans, the ones with sufficient emotional intelligence to rise above a merely animal existence. One test was by pain and observation.

    From the folds of her gown, she lifted a green metal cube about fifteen centimeters on a side. She turned it and Paul saw that one side was open – black and oddly frightening. Paul slowly put his hand into the box. He first felt a sense of cold as the blackness closed around his hand, then slick metal against his fingers and a prickling as though his hand were asleep…

    “What’s in the box?”

    “Pain.” He felt increased tingling in his hand, pressed his lips tightly together. How could this be a test? he wondered. The tingling became an itch… The itch became the faintest burning… It mounted slowly: heat upon heat upon heat… . The burning! The burning! He thought he could feel skin curling black on that agonized hand, the flesh crisping and dropping away until only charred bones remained.

    It stopped! As though a switch had been turned off, the pain stopped… “Take your hand from the box, young human, and look at it.” He fought down an aching shiver, stared at the lightless void where his hand seemed to remain of its own volition. Memory of pain inhibited every movement. Reason told him he would withdraw a blackened stump from that box. “Do it!” she snapped. He jerked his hand from the box, stared at it astonished. Not a mark. No sign of agony on the flesh. He held up the hand, turned it, flexed the fingers. “Pain by nerve induction,” she said. “Can’t go around maiming potential humans. There’re those who’d give a pretty for the secret of this box, though.”

    Sooo, the thing is, when going without your hijab, or seeking homosexual relations with strangers, or committing adultery can get you a flogging or your head lopped off, why do people still want to test the limits. I think the above woman is what you would call, “a frigging idiot with a death wish.” Not “brave”, but just “stupid.” Same with the gay Muslims who go out cruising for gay hookups. Stupid. They have put their foolish, silly, vain desires ahead of something important, like staying alive.


    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. No comment on how to look upon this woman.

      Cannot help but notice that yesterday the crew here was busy mocking a man who died doing something imprudent. Another decided to mock another young man who died in an accident. Another (participating in this thread) started in about how stupid men are compared to women.

      It’s all status games. What’s amusing is that the people who play them think well of themselves.

    2. She would rather fight in the shade.

      Existence versus life. Two very different things.

  7. It is stupefying how so many in the USA condemn the Saudis’ treatment of women while similarly opposing USA energy-self-reliance (Coal, Nuclear, Keystone and Dakota Access Pipelines), which would put pressure on the Saudis to soften their theocratic rule.

  8. Different countries have different standards of what constitutes ‘indecent exposure’. If you’d like lower standards, don’t travel to Saudi Arabia. Works for most people.

    Pew Research conducted public opinion surveys in six Muslim countries concerning the respondents’ understanding of what constituted ‘appropriate’ head covering for women (a somewhat different question than ones on legal penalties). Her mode of dress has a large constituency only in Lebanon, a country with a large non-Muslim population and a self-understanding as a mediator between the occident and the rest of the Near East. The modal response in these six countries was that a garment called an ‘amina’ made for appropriate covering. The amina covers the hair but displays the face. Saudi Arabia was the exception. Saudi respondents favored the niqab, which displays only the eyeballs.

    To some extent the use of coverings of various sorts is a way of regulating social interaction in cities, where, in contrast to village life, the male population consists of people who are not your cousins.

  9. Wow! The Muslims want to kill her! That’s even worse then the several Rabbis who kicked the crap out of a woman who refused to go to the back of the bus in Israel a few years ago, a story Western MSM completely ignored.

    Oh, I forgot, Rabbis, like blacks, can not commit hate crimes. Got it!

  10. What would the Saudi government do if a flash mob of 500 to 1000 women did this? Kill them all?
    I don’t think they would dare….

    1. Well, it may take some tipping-point action like this. I believe that sometime back, a group of women there went on a “protest drive” without male chaperones or chauffeurs. But there were few enough of them, that the authorities were able to round them up and impose punishment.

    2. They would most likely arrest them first, quickly and quietly. Especially for showing up in threatening numbers. Swift and total.

  11. There are some Saudi princes that won’t snitch on Malak. Especially if bedroom is loaded with Victoria’s Secret clothing. Saudi’s are in for a rood awakening when Trumps wife visits. And don’t forget the locker room talk guys have.

  12. When people pretend a god is on their side, anything is permissible. It’s long overdue to move beyond ancient nonsense.

    1. The ignorance is strong with this one. There are many people, including myself that do believe in God and that we have timeless principles to try to live up to. We respect that all human life is created equal with the unalienable right to life, liberty and property. I also accept that others do not believe in God, I used to be one of them. What I do not accept is any belief system that will seek by policy or practice to infringe on those unalienable rights or the pursuit of equal treatment under the rule of law.

      With that being said Dave, you tell me, are you prepared to defend ALL beliefs if they better secure equal treatment under the law? Are you prepared to defend ALL beliefs if those beliefs better secure the unalienable rights of all?

      1. The problem with religion is, who gets to define those “timeless principles,” because I’m sure the Taliban agree with you.

        Of course I defend the right of individuals to worship or not worship as they choose. But that’s never enough for the pious, who demand that everyone live under their inconsistent versions of so-called morality.

        1. “The problem with religion is, who gets to define those “timeless principles,” because I’m sure the Taliban agree with you.”

          Really? The Taliban would agree with me on equality and unalienable rights? Wow! I don’t believe you have any evidence of that.

          “Of course I defend the right of individuals to worship or not worship as they choose.”

          Then your beef should not be just with those that believe in God. No, your beef should be with those of ALL beliefs that would infringe on the unalienable rights of others…period. These people are the enemies of liberty and freedom.

          1. You miss the point. The Taliban and other lunatic groups think they know what those principles are, and all must submit to them. Just as you pretend to know what they are.

            And while I so appreciate your telling me what I should and shouldn’t say based on your righteous prejudgments, I am in favor of liberty for all individuals, equally under the law. Find someone else against whom to launch a diatribe; I couldn’t be clearer.

            1. Dave,
              I am certain you couldn’t be clearer. Your words are clear but your reasoning, not so much. You don’t respect anyone that believes in God. Your views are rather myopic in that they completely ignore the multitudes of non-believers that may also hold “inconsistent versions of so-called morality”.

              How do you know I’m “pretending” to know what these principles are? I have no problem with “beliefs”; I do however have a problem when those beliefs result in “actions” that infringe on the natural rights of others. I don’t pretend to “defend the right of individuals to worship or not worship as they choose.” I’m not the one advocating “It’s long overdue to move beyond ancient nonsense.”

              No Dave, you couldn’t be clearer. And that’s on you, not on me.

        2. Of course I defend the right of individuals to worship or not worship as they choose. But that’s never enough for the pious, who demand that everyone live under their inconsistent versions of so-called morality.

          Life is lived socially, and will always incorporate someone’s idea of correct conduct in public places. There is no way around that.

          1. Those norms should be based on debate and persuasion and approved by the people via their representatives: those norms should not by default be set by versions of ancient fables.

            1. Electoral and deliberative institutions have to be sustainable, which is to say that basic tasks of government must be something they can see to. See Egypt under Mohammed Morsi. The Arab monarchies have introduced such institutions gingerly. The experience of Egypt and Libya suggests they’ve been quite correct in how they have proceeded.

    2. When people pretend a god is on their side, anything is permissible.

      Says the man who knows nothing of the life of Joseph Stalin.

      1. Which Atheist text did he receive his mandates from?

        And it’s terrible that non-believers in Saudi Arabia are calling for the death of Malak Al Shehri. Just terrible.

          1. You make the mistake so often made by theists. You incorrectly equate atheism with a belief system. There are no atheist texts, since atheism has no set of scriptures or belief system akin to what religion has. Atheism is essentially a rejection of theistic beliefs, including the belief in gods. Das Kapital is a political and economic theory text. That its author was an atheist does not make the book an atheist text. Your logic here is flawed. By your logic any book about political or economic theory written by a person who believes in God is a Theist text, which of course would be patently absurd and false.

              1. Sorry to break it to you Toads, but atheism is not a belief system. There are no prescribed beliefs one must hold to be an atheist. Atheism is the rejection of a belief system, not a belief system itself. is there no end to the depth of your ignorance on this subject?

                I suspect that you will just be obtuse and double down on this idiotic position of yours. Thus, I call upon you to produce a list of the beliefs that are a part of this atheist belief system you claim exists. As an atheist, I’d be most interested to hear just exactly what set of beliefs I am required to hold according to this brain-fart of an idea you’ve rationalized into existence.

                1. Sorry to break it to you Toads, but atheism is not a belief system. T

                  Atheism incorporates a metaphysical assertion. Sorry you don’t get it. Alas, you’ll never stop being a pest about it.

                  1. Just what is this assertion you claim is incorporated in atheism? Whatever this assertion is just how does it qualify as a belief system, since a belief system by definition involves a set of beliefs, not a single belief? I, like most atheists I know, accept a materialistic perspective on reality, not a metaphysical one.

                    What are you defining as metaphysics? “In popular parlance, metaphysics has become the label for the study of things which transcend the natural world — that is, things which supposedly exist separately from nature and which have a more intrinsic reality than our natural existence. As a result, the popular sense of metaphysics has been the study of any question about reality which cannot be answered by scientific observation and experimentation. In the context of atheism, this sense of metaphysics is usually regarded as literally empty.” ( This certainly is my view of the concept. I reject the existence of a supernatural realm and any associated gods simply because there is at best an insufficient body of credible, convincing empirical evidence for their existence. I make no metaphysical claims. I make no metaphysical assertions. I do not reject the supernatural as a belief statement, but rather as the product of an examination of the evidence — in this case lack of evidence — for the claim that there is a supernatural realm and that there is a God. This is the case with every atheist with whom I am familiar.

                    You have not provided the set of beliefs you claim makes atheism a belief system. I asked you for this and you ignored it.

      2. Stalin wanted the Russian people to worship him as (effectively) a god. He eagerly sought “thank you Comrade Stalin” letters from the population. And he certainly didn’t tolerate any other gods (politicians) considering how many he had bumped off.

  13. Since Muslim men are unable to control themselves when they see a woman without covering, it is the men who need to be physically constrained, castrated, drugged, or whatever is necessary to protect women.

    1. You have surfaced the problem. However, even in some Western nations, the woman is seen to have instigated the allegedly unwanted sexual attack. There are fuming, snorting, raging, male lunatics everywhere. Western nations, at least, come out on the side of the woman, for the record. Western males acclimating themselves to Western females dressed provocatively has not taken that long, in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps in a 100 years Islam might evolve. They have to come here first. Strange how that works.

    2. Arab societies do not have high rates of violent crime except where you see a breakdown in public authority generally.

      1. Why do you think this is so? Do they obey the laws out of respect for the law produced by a society that values liberty, human rights and human dignity? Or do they obey the laws out of fear produced by brutal repression and subjugation? Are you willing to live in a society that sacrifices liberty and human rights to achieve lower rates of violent crime? Is it not possible to have both liberty and lower violent crime rates?

        1. The knucklehead in question said, “Since Muslim men are unable to control themselves when they see a woman without covering, “. They control themselves just fine in most Arab countries on a day to day basis. Arab countries vary in how severe or abusive the government is, spatially and temporally. In general, low crime rates are indicative of adequate informal social controls conjoined to adequate policing, with the balance between one and the other variable. Actual terror may enter into it locally, but terror is usually a function of maintaining political control, not public order generally (though it may do that too). Some low crime societies have quite liberal institutions (e.g. Switzerland) and some quite severe institutions (e.g. Saudi Arabia). Some crime-ridden societies have fairly liberal institutions (Brazil as we speak) or fairly brutal ones to the extent they have institutions (e.g. several African countries). There isn’t a simple trade-off between liberty and public safety. There are other vectors involved in producing public safety.

        2. Dogma: Toads argued two days ago about how brutal Castro’s peasant regime was, but apparently that argument is lost when it comes to head-removing bedouins floating on oil. S/he’s a troll.

          1. One’s foreign policy toward a country has a number of vectors. There weren’t any reasons of state to be congenial to Fidel Castro’s mafia. He ran a small and inveterately hostile country which produced nothing for which there were not ready substitutes. Most Latin American countries have some shortcomings in their civil society. They do, however, have a public life which is not an artifact and don’t treat their public like inmates.

            There is no argument for being antagonistic to Saudi Arabia for reasons of state. As for ‘human rights’, what’s your alternative to the current regime? The alternative to military regimes in Latin America was elected government. Most Latin American countries had considerable experience with that. The jalopy runs. It’s just no high-performance. Even Paraguay has been able for 27 years to maintain an electoral system and independent newspapers, FWIW. The only countries which fail in that regard are Haiti (to a degree) and Cuba.

            You’ve had serial catastrophes with electoral systems in the the Near East, Central Asia, and North Africa. Arab monarchies which have gingerly constructed power sharing arrangements with elected officials are the exception. As for Saudi penology and the like, we have no ready reason to believe that there is much public dissatisfaction with that.

  14. Barbaric….

    Prisoners ‘killed’ at US base
    Two Afghan prisoners were killed while in US custody at their base at Bagram, a military coroner has concluded.
    The report said “blunt force trauma” had contributed to the deaths.
    Over 60 children held at Guantanamo
    “They include at least 10 detainees still held at the U.S. base in Cuba who were 14 or 15 when they were seized – including child soldiers who were held in solitary confinement, repeatedly interrogated and allegedly tortured,” the rights group report added.
    The disclosures, by the London-based legal rights group Reprieve, contradict repetitive lies by the Bush administration which claims that the U.S. is the world’s foremost protector of human rights and freedoms.
    Drones kill rescuers in ‘double tap’, say activists
    For these attacks, the US relies on consecutive rounds of strikes – missiles are dropped, killing people. A moment later – when people in the area have raced to the scene to help the wounded, another round of missiles is dropped.
    The Pakistani report, obtained and published this week by the Bureau for Investigative Journalism, details 75 drone strikes and their alleged collateral damage between 2006 and 2009. Of 746 people killed by drones in that period, the BIJ report says, at least 147 “are clearly stated to be civilian victims, 94 of those are said to be children.”

    But then who are we to judge…. 🙁

  15. Fortunately the USA has the First Amendment which protects the state from the church and the church from the state.

    1. And unfortunately Brian, the 1st Amendment doesn’t actually DO anything without people willing to defend both sides of the equation.

  16. I admire the courage of women like Ms. Al Shehri.

    Unlike many “talkers” in the U.S., she took a very real risk for her beliefs.

  17. Wow, what is there to say? All right–who is going to be the first to comment on that governments US enablers? People are certainly hypocritical to a point, but we really need to call out those who say they support all classes and races of people, yet work to support and to profit from a repressive regime like this.

    1. Well put. She’s quite the patriot by breaking the law there. On the other hand, we’re still inexplicably confused about Snowden and Manning’s actions.

      She’s not only a hottie, she’s grown a pair, and she has ink, too.

      1. No one’s confused. Manning belongs in prison. You admire criminals, which isn’t confused. It’s just bad.

    2. We have ordinary diplomatic and trade relations with Saudi Arabia. So does just about every other country in the world. Why is that wrong?

      1. And besides, we make boatloads of money off the Saudis by selling them arms to kill people with. What’s not to like about this arrangement.

        1. The House of Saud has not been aught but a pro-forma participant in any interstate war since 1918. Intramural warfare in the Kingdom came to an end with the defeat of the Hashemite tribe in 1924. The Saudi government has participated in counter-insurgency campaigns in Oman (ca. 1975) and in the Yemen (prior to 1971 and more recently). You can complain that they ‘kill people’ in the course of counter-insurgency campaigns, but the complaint is frivolous.

          In the last seven years, annual sales of military equipment to Saudi Arabia delivered thereto have been variable but bounced around $130 million. Annual revenues of construction firms doing work for the Saudi military have been variable but around $105 million. That would be about $8.50 per Saudi per year, and the earnings accrue to commercial and industrial firms who sell the equipment and services, not to the U.S. government. So, no, not a boatload.

      2. Yes, that is fine. We should trade with everyone. Every person in the world should have the chance to buy US goods. I have a problem with politician’s (a certain politician’s) private foundations taking large contributions from foreign governments who demonstrate disregard for human rights opposite to their own (hollow) rhetoric. Beyond that, we choose not demand the same from them as we do from, say, Iran. But we do know it’s all games that have little to do with human rights in the end.

    3. slohrss29

      Ghadaffi’s Libya had the highest standard of living in Africa. The U.S. government was afraid that citizens in other countries might demand the same – so Ghadaffi was brutally slain & the country was destroyed. Castro’s government did more for Cubans than any other Cuban leader in history. In life, and after his passing, many people, including most of the readers of this blog, put on a mighty show of ignorance and prejudice – in demonizing his accomplishments. Ditto many other leaders (e.g. Chavez, Putin et al.)

      Are you surprised?

      1. Ghadaffi’s Libya had the highest standard of living in Africa.

        The country was floating on oil.

        Castro’s government did more for Cubans than any other Cuban leader in history.

        He turned the place into a prison society. That’s ‘doing’. Cuba was in 1958 one of the more affluent societies in Latin America, behind only Argentina, Uruguay, and a couple of others. Been a long downhill slide.

        1. Your false grasp of facts is deplorable…or more likely – intentional. Mafiosi involved with gambling, prostitution and narcotics did well while Cuba’s corrupt dictator (Battista) was in power. The vast majority of citizens lived in abject poverty.

          You should apologize to readers of this blog for blatantly spreading lies and disinformation about Castro and Cuba.

          The Dangerous Bias of the “Unbiased” About Fidel’s Cuba

Comments are closed.