digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

Saudi Rape Victim Given 200 Lashes as Punishment

breitbart.com — The ultra advanced and civilized nation of Saudi Arabia has punished a rape VICTIM with 6 months in jail and 200 lashes.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • tman84, on 11/15/2007, -30/+324why doesn't Bush want to bring democracy and freedom to this nation as well?
    • wandywalsh, on 11/15/2007, -9/+19In time. Let's get alternative energy up and running first. (Expensive oil means conflict, riots, death and starvation all over the world.) How about Burma next? (I'm not necessarily talking militarily, either).
      • aadyss, on 11/16/2007, -4/+1Well wandywash.
        Come on. let's go. Where is Burma?
        • diggnitarial, on 11/16/2007, -3/+1Way to recognize a rhetorical question, wandy*brain*wash
          • sanman, on 11/16/2007, -20/+6The Left are political mercenaries. They'll defend Charles Manson if they thought Bush opposed him.
          • pnyphnz, on 11/16/2007, -2/+9@sanman

            Are you in the wrong thread or something?
        • brainster31, on 11/16/2007, -3/+4somewhere theres not oil
      • Matthew720, on 11/16/2007, -11/+8Saudi Arabia isn't the only unsavory ally we have in the M.E.. Israel's human rights track record pales in comparison. German bishops recently visited Israel and said that the treatment the Palestinians get is on par with what the Jews received under Nazi rule.
        • Ebulating, on 11/16/2007, -2/+9The Palestinians aren't Israelis. This is how Saudi treats its own people. Saudi Arabia is basically run by muslim men for muslim men. Women's testimony is only worth half of a man's, and a non-muslim's testimony isn't worth anything at all.
          • saqer, on 11/16/2007, -7/+2u speak as if you have it all figured out. Maybe if you do a little more research and open your mind you'll discover why your comments are obtuse.
        • scott2007, on 11/16/2007, -2/+8My God, you are sooooo full of *****!! How can you compare this with Israel?! When has a RAPE VICTIM ever been given 200 lashes in Israel?!? YOU ARE INSANE!
          • Matthew720, on 11/16/2007, -3/+2lol Your reaction is indicative of the fact that you have no basic knowledge of the crimes Israel commits on a daily basis against Palestinians in the West Bank which is under an illegal military occupation. That fact alone, proves that you're clueless to the Nth degree. To you, someone who's been brainwashed into thinking that Israel is the 51st state, Israel is a beacon of freedom and liberty in the Middle East. I agree, it is, for the Jewish population only. Everyone else is treated like cattle. By the way, your moral relativism is pathetic.

          • Oldskool454, on 11/29/2007, -0/+0you are right, they would imprison her son and father, seize the family's bank accounts and assets and bulldoze her house down. You are right Israel is WAY better.
        • victorypup, on 11/16/2007, -2/+6LOL, my poor idiotic friend. Israel is the one very small representation of sanity in the entire Middle East. The treatment given to the Palestinians??? I do say, and what kind of treatment would you give to a vagabond band of Terrorist who thinks it's okay to make a political statment by blowing up innocent unsuspecting children?
          • Matthew720, on 11/16/2007, -4/+21. Keep your delusions of grandeur to yourself.
            2. Since 1000BC until 1948 AD, Israel never existed as a state with defined borders. Even when there was a great number of Jews in Palestine there were less than 70 thousand. That's according to UN estimates for the year 1850. The Palestinians have had their land taken from them in 1948 with the help of the British.

            Thousands were slaughtered and killed. Villages were demolished. Wait, I haven't even gotten to 1967. This all happened in 1948. In 1967 when Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza they put the Palestinians under siege. Palestinians are killed at a ratio of 8 to 1 (Israelis). The crude weapons they use are no match for Israel's thousand pound bombs and laser guided missiles. Innocent women and children are shot on sight by Israeli soldiers for demonstrating peacefully. Your ignorant lecture makes it sound like the Palestinians are vilent buy nature. From 1967 - 1988 they demonstrated peacefully through civil disobedience. But they kept getting shot and killed by the Israeli military. (Read their rules of engagement you might learn a thing or two). In 1988 they couldn't take getting shot at anymore and decided to fight back. When Israel refused to remove the illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza in 1993 and halted the peace talks, a minority of Palestinians (Hamas) decided to fight back through suicide bombings. Again, you either no nothing about the conflict or you do, but you choose to spew those ignorant talking points in hopes of distracting the world from the fascist state you blindly love.
          • Matthew720, on 11/16/2007, -4/+3One more thing. I'm actually Israeli and I have lived in Israel. Your pomposity is rather telling. Not only do you know nothing about what you're spewing, but you think a sound bite or two are enough to explain the complex nature of the Middle East. Perhaps that's what simpletons like you need.

            PS: If you have high school education or higher, pick up some books about the history of the Israeli Palestinian conflict by authors like:

            Tom Segev (An Israeli historian).
            Illan Pappe (AN Israeli professor).
            Benny Morris (Another Israeli historian).
          • foopirata, on 11/17/2007, -0/+5And for anyone with some brains, a non-Palestinian history book will show the complete errors of this gentleman's narrative.
            From "1000 BC to 1948" there was no state with defined borders? Yes, "Matthew", keep telling yourself that. Forget all that archeology and stuff - it's all a big Joo conspiracy.
            As to the rest of the garbage...pffft. And he deems himself a Haifa-educated academic. Careful, your diploma might be annulled for excess of historic revisionism and fantasy.
          • wpi97, on 11/17/2007, -0/+5@Matthew720

            "Since 1000BC until 1948 AD, Israel never existed as a state with defined borders."
            So, I guess a place called Judea that fought a serious of wars against the Romans is just a piece of fiction, right? Now a question for you, has there ever been an Arab state called "Palestine" with defined borders? Is that where Jesus was born?

            " Even when there was a great number of Jews in Palestine there were less than 70 thousand. That's according to UN estimates for the year 1850. "
            And how many Arabs were there at the same time? By the way, I hate to break it to you, Mr. Political Science Major, but the UN did not exist until 1942.

            "The Palestinians have had their land taken from them in 1948 with the help of the British. Thousands were slaughtered and killed. Villages were demolished."

            Could that have had something to do with the fact that the Arabs rejected a compromise, that would have given the Palestinians their own state, and would have given them an opportunity to peacefully coexist with Israel? Could the attack by combined forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq on the newly declared state of Israel have had something to do with the situation? In that war, STARTED BY THE ARABS, 6,373 Jews (4,000 troops and about 2,400 civilians) were killed. I wonder how you would explain Jewish civilian deaths. And once you do that, we can discuss Arab attacks on Jews in Palestine that started in the 1890's, including the Hebron Massacre of 1929.

            " Wait, I haven't even gotten to 1967. This all happened in 1948. In 1967 when Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza they put the Palestinians under siege."
            Oh, you mean the preemptive strike by Israel against Egypt in 1967, after Egypt massed troops on the Israeli border with a clear intention to attack? By the way, what was the status of Gaza and the West Bank before 1967? Last I checked they were occupied by Egypt and Jordan respectively, the local population was treated like crap, and yet nobody called for an independent Palestinian state for some reason... Weird, huh?

            "Palestinians are killed at a ratio of 8 to 1 (Israelis)."
            *****! These are the casualty figures for the "second intifada" started in 2000 from wikipedia: "1027 Israelis total: -704 Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians;
            - 323 Israeli security force personnel killed by Palestinians. 4,901 Palestinians total:
            - 4,304 Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces; - 41 Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians; - 556 Palestinians killed by Palestinians" If you do not count Palestinians killed by Palestinians, the ratio is about 4 to 1. Note also that the figures do not differentiate between Plestinian civilians and militants, while about twice as many Israeli civilians were killed compared to Israeli soldiers. Finally, note that Israeli actions are retaliatory: if the Palestinians had stopped the indiscriminate murder of Israeli civilians none of them would be killed.

            "From 1967 - 1988 they demonstrated peacefully through civil disobedience."
            Really? Civil disobedience?! I think Gandhi has just rolled in his grave!
            "Between 1969 to September 1970 the PLO with a passive support from Jordan fought a war of attrition with Israel. During this time, the PLO launched artillery attacks on the moshavim and kibbutzim of Bet Shean Valley Regional Council as well as attempted to launch attacks by fedayeen on Israeli civilians. These attacks came to an end after the PLO expulsion from Jordan in September 1970.

            After Black September in 1970, the PLO and its offshoots waged an international campaign against Israelis. Notable events were the Munich Olympics massacre (1972) , the hijacking of several civilian airliners, the Savoy Hotel attack, the Zion Square explosive refrigerator and the Coastal Road massacre. During the 1970s and the early 1980s, Israel suffered attacks from PLO bases in Lebanon, such as the Avivim school bus massacre in 1970, the Maalot massacre in 1974 and the attack led by Samir Kuntar in 1979. Following the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, called "Operation Peace for Galilee" by the IDF, and the exile of the PLO to Tunis, Israel had a relatively quiet decade." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_political ...

            I am also really curious, how is it that you, as an Arab were able to get a college education in Israel? Could this mean that Arabs are not really oppressed so much there? You know, with the right to vote, Arab political parties, Arab members of the Knesset, Arab cabinet minister... Also, how much did you have to pay for that education? Because I am still paying my student loans in the US.
          • wpi97, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2That was a "series of wars", not a "serious of wars", of course. :)
        • cphill02, on 11/16/2007, -0/+5Correction: Only people that strap bombs to themselves are treated like cattle by Israel. Human rights? Check out Israel's govt. allowing gay pride parades as an example to their tolerance and support of individual human rights & freedom. How many gay pride parades do you see occur in ANY other middle eastern country.
      • saadghauri, on 11/16/2007, -0/+9Actually, though no one probably cares, in Islam there is no punishment for the rape victim. This is major douchebaggery on part of Saudia Arabia, which is a very ***** up place. I lived there for 11 years. They dont let the women drive because 'the woman's car might get stalled and then she will have to ask men to help her' (and because of this lay women go around with drivers.). They have stopped gyms for women because 'the women might develop sexual feelings watching each other work out' (both of these are official government statements)
    • Idiggapony, on 11/15/2007, -28/+104Because Bush is a self-serving hypocrite who is handomsely paid off by the Saudi regime, and whose entire "doctrine" of bringing democracy to the Middle East is proven to be a fraud by his absolute failure to even mention the possibility of democracy in Saudi Arabia, whose government is one of the most primitive and most repressive on Earth.

      Now that we've gotten the obligatory Bush bashing out of the way, can we start to rid the U.S. of the influence of this sickening regime? Let's start by kicking out the radical, pro-terrorist, violence-inciting imams that the Saudis have installed in the overwhelming majority of American mosques. Let's refuse to allow Saudi Wahabists to control the selection of Muslim clerics for American prisons and the military system. Let's stop American universities from accepting huge payments from the Saudi regime in exchange for strict censorship of Middle Eastern studies. Let's start taxing imported oil, so that it again becomes profitable to start using the many American oil wells that are currently idle. Let's dig for oil everywhere we can find it. Let's stop allowing the Saudis to suppress research on alternative fuel technologies, and start investing even a tiny fraction of the trillions that we spend on Middle Eastern wars on development of non-petroleum energy sources.

      The Saudis have spent tens of billions of dollars on spreading jihadist ideology in the western world and financing terrorism. W, his father, President Clinton, and every other U.S. president in the past few decades have been handsomely paid off by the monsters who rule Saudi Arabia. Their sick ideology is incompatible with modern human civilization, and we simply have to stop allowing them to spread their influence around the world just because they have all the money.
      • pjr12345, on 11/15/2007, -13/+11If, as you say, we "rid the U.S. of the influence of this sickening regime", US influence of "this sickening regime" would also disappear. And it is US influence that is responsible for Saudi Arabia's modernization (However slow it may be).

        In truth, US involvement with Turkey, Afghanistan, and especially Iraq does more to apply pressure to Arab regimes, "friends" or foes, toward more rapid progress. Our continuing commitment to progress through "any means necessary" goes a long way to long-term regional stability, and worldwide abatement of terrorism and its support.

        In short, we need to continue chasing the bad guys where ever we find them, rewarding the friends who work with us, and pressuring those would consider damaging us.
        • Idiggapony, on 11/15/2007, -1/+15I agree with this philosophy. Maintaining cooperative relationships with moderating forces within the Muslim world helps to retain a mechanism for promoting modernization and liberalization. The United States should seek out and befriend moderate Muslims wherever they may be. We should be under no illusion that every foreign leader with whom we ally ourselves must be a saint.

          However, the Saudi royal family is not a moderating force. It is exactly the opposite. It has succeeded to an alarming degree in its extremely well-funded worldwide efforts to force cultural regression upon the Muslim world, and to convert otherwise civilized Muslims around the globe into violent raving fanatics. Money from the Saudi royal family gushes through the bank accounts of terrorist and pro-jihad groups in virtually every western country. It buys political influence, economic favors, academic censorship, incitements to genocidal terrorism, and acts of misogynistic violence in innumerable spheres of American society.

          The Saudi royal family does not merely “consider damaging us.” It is, in a very real sense, at war with the United States, every bit as much as the Soviet Union was during the cold war, and with more dangerous results. We continue to pretend otherwise, in service not of long-term foreign policy expediencies, but rather short-term financial gain. It’s the wrong thing to do.
          • sanman, on 11/16/2007, -1/+3"Cooperation," huh? It's called a Protection Racket.
          • pjr12345, on 11/16/2007, -0/+0I agree, US relations with the Saudis is akin to buying candy from the dentist. But what are we to do?
        • kuzotz, on 11/16/2007, -0/+4Too bad Turkey isn't an Arab country, and is the most pro western, and progressive country in that region.
      • Cannon49, on 11/16/2007, -2/+0Wow that had to be one of the greatest comments I've ever read.
    • dukeeeey, on 11/15/2007, -6/+35because they are business partners
    • Midvicious, on 11/15/2007, -12/+55I've always wondered how the Americans that voted for Bush could explain things like this with a straight face. The reaction is always the same:

      1) Open mouth pause
      2) A weak dash of rhetoric
      3) A reminder of Sadaam Hussein and September 11th
      4) Anti-American accusations
      5) insults
      • aadyss, on 11/16/2007, -16/+7That's true. Under Bill Clinton, this would have never happened. Wait, could he have been the rapist?
      • markmoogal, on 11/16/2007, -6/+3Yes! Wish I could have said it better.

        But then, what is one anonymous raped brown woman in the face of 300 years of constantly-accumulating American dollars? Makes me die a thousand insignificant deaths.
      • goodkidyo, on 11/16/2007, -6/+3:o ... look at this pie chart, it shows that the world is a better place without saddam.. god bless america and god bless the poor souls who lost they're lives because of terrorists! What? you really think that? Well then you can just move to Canada because that doesn't sound very American to me!
        you know what? go ***** yourself!
        • qbak, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1I just love the fact that in one sentence you put the word God and the F word together. What a shame
      • TxAggie08, on 11/16/2007, -1/+3Seriously? It really is very simply. They have all the oil. We can't fight them until we have alternative energy and better develop our own resources in the mean time. Switching from the oil based economy will be hard and take time. No drilling in Alaska though, no the dems can't have that. Dems can't critisize for us not pushing for change in Saudi Arabia while blocking the kind of initiatives that would help us move towards energy independence. As long as we are addicted to Saudi oil we can't do a damn thing.
      • darkchild82, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1yeah, that and "So just move to Canada alright !?!" & "You're such a terrorist sympathizer" comments.
      • johnnyvegas1, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2Oh yes, funny how everyone wants Bush do something about this...Hmmm...where has everyone been the last several centuries? It's not like Islam was invented last yr, this type of practice has been going on now for a long time. Easy to blame a one person now...why didn't people complain about this during the last several administrations...
    • Genius16, on 11/15/2007, -12/+5/sarcasm we should bomb every living thing in this country and force our freedoms upon them unrelentingly. this is the american way!
      • placidified, on 11/15/2007, -1/+4yes that would be a great idea, then you get every single Muslim in the world uprising against the West, because you just bombed their most holy place to smithereens!
      • aadyss, on 11/16/2007, -1/+1No way genius, Yours and the liberal way is to apply sanctions and starve the children to death. I would rather be bombed, thank you very much.
        • TheLoneHoot, on 11/16/2007, -0/+2like one existence is worse than the other - let's hope you're lucky enough to never be able to evaluate that ignorance of yours.
    • lordmetroid, on 11/15/2007, -1/+11Because there is a treaty stating they will protect the house of Saud in exchange for oil.
      • BoneheadFarker, on 11/16/2007, -0/+3I thought it was spice? No wait...that's Sardaukar. Sand, war, and endless political games are still involved though...
    • jsmith39, on 11/15/2007, -2/+18I really can't wait for that part of the world to run out of oil.
      • thenotchosenone, on 11/16/2007, -0/+4too bad it won't be in our lifetime
      • aadyss, on 11/16/2007, -0/+4Do you plan on living for 300 years?
      • qpn6ph9q, on 11/16/2007, -0/+4Widespread adoption of alternative energies will have the same effect. The high oil prices have guaranteed movment in these areas.
      • qpn6ph9q, on 11/16/2007, -3/+2Digg double post *ignore*
      • skyfire1, on 11/16/2007, -1/+1Someone needs to drop a match in the reserve.
    • Bodhinature, on 11/15/2007, -1/+15No, he wants to give them 20 billion dollars in military aid. In fact, he's already done so.
    • scottknick, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3He believes he already has.
    • alecsputnik, on 11/16/2007, -1/+2because those are his friends over there!!!
      • victorypup, on 11/16/2007, -0/+3They are more than friends, they're family.
    • Madrigalian, on 11/16/2007, -6/+7Damned if we do and damned if we don't. There's just no pleasing some people.
      • MaTT2011, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1Well, thats a snazzy little buzz phrase to throw out there if you don't have any real kind of justification or reasoning to back up, or explain, such a case of incredible hypocrisy but it certainly doesn't do anything to add to the conversation on the issue. You might as well just say nothing.

    • pintomp3, on 11/16/2007, -5/+9it's an extremely male dominated society with backwards religious traditions. it also has a very wealthy elite and an almost slavelike underclass. he probably agrees very much with it.
    • Pritchard, on 11/16/2007, -3/+2I hope we don't just go around freeing everyone. We could make it in the people's and the government's best interest to be more free if we stopped being so tyrannical. No matter how powerful the USA becomes, and this has shown over its current history, we will never be able to police or free the world. We must allow the citizens to have the right to choose freedom.
    • Xegyn, on 11/16/2007, -0/+2Because that AND 200 lashes would be cruel and unusual punishment.
    • diggerine, on 11/16/2007, -3/+6Because if he did, you, and others like you would be condemning him for it as well, and you know it.
      • MaTT2011, on 11/16/2007, -1/+2I don't think you understand; His stating of "why doesn't Bush want to bring democracy and freedom to this nation as well?" is a way of pointing out the lack of reasoning, justification and hypocrisy of policies and actions which "Bring democracy" to X nation at Y time.

        The whole point is to illustrate that this kind of thinking is idiotic, unreasonable and immoral. You cant "bring" political change to other nations of peoples through military or otherwise coercive measures....democracy is a philosophy on how government should run and until the people believe in it and act to make it their own political philosophy in their own society any attempt to force them to do so is an exercise in complete stupidity that results in nothing but conflict.

        Come on people, you cant reasonably believe that Bush's action in the middle east are really about "liberation", "freedom" and "democracy" ; remember the whole "mushroom cloud" thing? And the other justifications that turned out to be completely false? The whole "bringing democracy" thing is just the latest in a string of failed attempts to make people believe that this war is justified and "right" when in reality all it is is aggression, death and misery for all those involved (except for maybe those who are making money). You don't bring democracy to a nation by first claiming it has WMD's, then has ties to a terrorist organization that attacked us and then, finally, declaring it a war to "free" a nation from political philosophies and policies that aren't democracy.
        • victorypup, on 11/16/2007, -1/+1That's right, if Bush was really consumed with Democracy he would submit to it right here in his own country. King George is not one that even remotely comprehends the Tenets of a Democratic Republic.
      • vasilisa13, on 11/22/2007, -0/+0well said!
    • QuickeningYak, on 11/16/2007, -3/+1If Bush decides not to do business with the Saud family anymore, then he'll stand up in front of a camera to declare such treatment of women some sort of "heinousation of the improtectorant" or some such *****, and then The Grand Deciderer will ***** down both legs for a DoD budget increase and a 20-fold increase in the number of bombers in USAF arsenal, and away we go in the name of Bush's family and Rahhtful 'Murkans who love him so ***** much.

      ...all of which can begin in 1/100 second, because that's about deeply The Grand Wizard ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Deciderer thinks about, well, anything really.

      Until then, things like this story will continue to be ignored where it matters.
    • NoStoppingUs, on 11/16/2007, -5/+5oh now you people want to invade saudia arabia? who are the true hypocrites here? you bitch that we went to war with iraq, but promote war with SA? ha. pathetic.
      • GeckoSlayer, on 11/16/2007, -2/+2agreed * 100.
      • MaTT2011, on 11/16/2007, -1/+3Are you purposely trying to miss the point COMPLETELY???

        Thinking is a wonderful activity that all humans should engage in; as such i highly recommend it to you. Its especially useful to use before commenting on t3h interwebz.
    • tcpip4lyfe, on 11/16/2007, -1/+2oil
    • TheKron, on 11/16/2007, -1/+1Bush probably doesn't bring democracy and freedom because harsh sentences != gassing tens of thousands of citizens and dismembering opposition and their families. If you can't handle the truth, feel free to dig me down.
      • victorypup, on 11/16/2007, -1/+1Bush doesn't give a diddle about Democracy and freedom, neither does he care if thousands are gassed and dismembered. If he could figure out how to impliment those behaviours here many of us would be in the box cars already.
    • dp619, on 11/21/2007, -0/+0What country did the gas come from?
  • CommonCents, on 11/15/2007, -35/+199The country is goverened by religious laws. This would be the religion of peace?
    • Moxsea, on 11/15/2007, -22/+69Relgion and peace are not related.
      • aadyss, on 11/16/2007, -19/+3Spelling and liberalism are like oil and water.
        • TheLoneHoot, on 11/16/2007, -6/+6Troll much?
        • iFrikkenR, on 11/16/2007, -2/+5there's a difference between a typo (i.e an accident) and incorrect spelling (i.e not knowing how to spell a word), ass.
        • Lordboogar, on 11/30/2007, -0/+0Liberalism and good sense mix like oil and water, but so does conservatism and good sense. At least conservatives have enough interest in guns and law to prevent the violent savagery displayed by these cultures.
    • mightydavefish, on 11/15/2007, -35/+59Don't you love it when some jackass pretends his religion is more peaceful than others?
      Like this dick. The implication is that somehow islam is NOT the religion of peace.
      Like most things, it all comes down to WHO we are talking about.
      The Crusades were bloody and violent and Christian driven, as was the Inquisition.
      Vile abusive acts of torture took place "for" Christianity.
      Pretending that you don't get it just makes things more difficult.
      You thought it was clever, but I'm letting you know it wasn't.
      • sandiegoliving, on 11/15/2007, -32/+23The crudsades were a response to muslim invaders and the tyrany they brought.
        • zombies187, on 11/15/2007, -14/+17The muslims protected the jews that the christians were trying to kill during the crusades.
          • moskaudancer, on 11/15/2007, -7/+12Hell, the Muslims protected the Christians in the Holy Land, too, until Europeans invaded it. Everyone was getting along fine in Jerusalem before the Christian leaders in the West decided they weren't rich enough.
          • pintomp3, on 11/16/2007, -4/+7the jews didn't have it that great under muslim rule, but it was much better than how they were treated under christian rule.
          • blackhawk919, on 11/16/2007, -1/+13@ moskaudancer
            You leave out quite a few facts from your statements not the least of which is any non-Muslims living there were paying a Jizya(tax) because they were considered second class citizens (if even that). If they didn't pay the tax? You guessed it, they'd be looking for a new head in the near future because theirs would most likely be missing. There was nothing even remotely near to non-Muslims getting along fine in Islamic countries in that day. Before Islam yes, but not after.
          • twisterrust, on 11/16/2007, -1/+1Reading from yo all comments look like that you have been there

            yeah yeah I know it is called reading , but it never got me this far
          • diafel, on 11/16/2007, -2/+13The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.

            By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world. Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death. As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.

            In theory, the Crusades were provoked by the harassment of Christian pilgrims from Europe to the Holy Land, in which many were kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam or even killed. (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time).
            The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They never attacked Saudi Arabia or sacked Mecca as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople.

            The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched over less than two centuries. The Muslim occupation is in its 1,372nd year. The period of Crusader “aggression” compresses to about 20 years of actual military campaign, much of which was spent on organization and travel. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250). By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years.

            Unlike Jihad, the Crusades were never justified on the basis of New Testament teachings. This is why they are an anomaly, the brief interruption of fourteen centuries of relentless Jihad against Christianity that began long before the Crusades and continued well after they were over.

            The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which 30,000 people were said to have been massacred. This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople and Narbonne, but Muslims have never apologized for their crimes and never will.
            What is called 'sin and excess' by other religions, is what Islam refers to as the will of Allah.
          • scott2007, on 11/16/2007, -1/+5You forgot to mention that they burnt down the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem where Christ was crucified. That was the last straw which provoked the crusades. No Christian should ever forget that.
          • randf, on 11/16/2007, -0/+5getting along fine...after the military invasion and kililng that brought the muslims into power in europe. sorry...there wasn't a big happy election that put the muslims into power. so "getting along fine" kinda depends on which army just marched in and whether or not they killed you and your infidel family before protecting some other guy.
        • blackhawk919, on 11/15/2007, -4/+9I'd have to do some fact checking on that because I think the Muslims were actually responsible for killing many innocent pilgrims to Jerusalem in those days which is part of what helped kick off one of the crusades.

          However, assuming you were correct I'd have to say: My how times have changed.
        • TheLoneHoot, on 11/16/2007, -6/+1@blackhawk919
          I dugg you up, but I'd say the same can be said for the current illegal state of Israel and it's being a haven for the persecuted... how times have changed indeed.
      • rlh1, on 11/15/2007, -11/+19I would say that some religions are more peaceful then others......Amish, Buddhism, Quakers ?

        But that's irrelevant, why do you have to bring up the Crusades, or Inquisition, they have nothing to do with a rape victim in Saudi Arabia being lashed 200 times.
        And did you say Like this dick, or Like His Dick....is this a typo ?
        • ngmcs8203, on 11/15/2007, -17/+2And what about that Amish guy that shot up the school? He doesn't represent peace... does he?
        • rlh1, on 11/15/2007, -1/+24ngmcs8203 ---- I do believe that the gunman was not Amish, his victims were.
          The families of the victims forgave the gunman and set up a charitable fund for the family of the gunman.
          I'd say that is a pretty peaceful religion.
        • blackhawk919, on 11/15/2007, -0/+7ngmcs8203,

          I think you are misrepresenting facts here. Please post a link. If you are referring to what I think you are that was a non Amish guy who slaughtered helpless Amish school children.
        • verivalta, on 11/15/2007, -0/+7@ngmcs8203--The man that shot up the Amish school was not himself Amish, he lived in a neighboring town.
        • Vegiemaster, on 11/15/2007, -1/+5@ngmcs8203
          Actually, it was a regular guy that decided to shoot up the school; he wasn't Amish. And the Amish community chose to forgive the man.

          In regards to Christianity, if people would follow the teachings of Jesus, everyone would love one another. Not necessarily agreeing with them or their practices, but they would love them as God loves them.
        • achortleaday, on 11/15/2007, -4/+0quaker != pacifist. study some history sometime.
        • pintomp3, on 11/16/2007, -4/+4the shooter was christian, the religion of love.
        • blackhawk919, on 11/16/2007, -2/+5The shooter was mentally disturbed and that's nothing that Christianity can take responsibility for. There are gonna be a few individual whack jobs in any religion. His crimes were nothing he learned from Christianity, nor was he a devout Christian (to my knowledge). He was basically Christian by default.
        • TheLoneHoot, on 11/16/2007, -0/+2@ achortleaday (damned digg comment system) "quaker != pacifist. study some history sometime."

          Tell that to the US military. Want to get out of the military as a concientious objector? If I'm not mistaken you can prove to them that one or both of your parents is a Quaker and you're set.
          • achortleaday, on 11/20/2007, -0/+0that's the interpretation of the US military. Historically, the quakers were founded as a radical religious group that often protested violently. there is nothing in quaker theology that keeps them from violence any more than any other christian group. They adopted pacifism as a way to avoid persecution.
      • blackhawk919, on 11/15/2007, -8/+31mightydavefish,

        You are comparing what people did in the name of Christianity 1000 years or more ago to what Jihadists do today? How is that a comparison?
        • acceptab1euname, on 11/16/2007, -3/+13It seems to be the excuse of first resort for lots of wannabe muslim apologists: "b,b,b,b,b,b,but Christians!"
        • diafel, on 11/16/2007, -0/+8Regardless of what his birth certificate may or may not have said, Timothy McVeigh was not a religious man. At no time did he credit his deeds to religion, quote Bible verses, or claim that he killed for God.

          The so-called “members of other faiths” alluded to by Muslims are nearly always just nominal members who have no active involvement. They are neither inspired by, nor do they credit religion as Muslim terrorists do, and this is what makes it a very different matter.

          Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make.

          Muslims who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges.

          Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious (as Muslims enjoy pointing out), but consider the scope of the problem. There were five deadly attacks over a 35 year period in the U.S. Seven people died. This is an average of one death every five years.

          By contrast, Islamic terrorists staged nearly ten thousand deadly attacks in just the six years following September 11th, 2001. If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds five million over this same period.

          In the last six years, there have been perhaps a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths combined. No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly every day of the year. Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it. Nor do they have large groups across the globe dedicated to the mass murder of people who worship a different god, as the broader community of believers struggles with ambivalence and a radical clergy that supports the terror.

          Muslims may like to pretend that other religions are just as subject to "misinterpretation" as is their “perfect” one, but the reality speaks of something far worse.
        • dragonalone1, on 11/16/2007, -0/+0I have to say I agree your words.
      • CraigJ, on 11/15/2007, -3/+13Buried for assuming CommonCents has a religion...
        • TheOther1, on 11/15/2007, -6/+1Buried for assuming CommonCents = Common Sense
      • 1longtime, on 11/15/2007, -5/+3"You thought it was clever, but I'm letting you know it wasn't."
        man i love that, that will be my new mantra! and yeah, very annoying to hear anyone making stupid generalizations about people/religion/politics etc. lay off islam already.
        ...ON THE OTHER HAND...
        i dont like the idea of religious-based governing. globally separating church and state would solve 90% of the problems on this planet.
        • TxAggie08, on 11/16/2007, -0/+3I'd lay off Islam if it wasn't radical Islamist that wanted to kill me.
      • Scully1981, on 11/15/2007, -0/+6Funny, I didn't see CommonCents mention being a member of a christian faith.
      • Macuyiko, on 11/15/2007, -1/+14First of all, the parent poster never said he considered his religion to be more peaceful, he never even mentioned his religion. For all I know, he might be an atheist. Also, you're comparing the crusades which happened in the Middle Ages with something that is still happening today. At least we are a bit more civilized today, we've been through the enlightment. Also there is always a tiny little detail people who mention the crusades always forget. A quick quote from Wikipedia might clear things up: "The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the sacred "Holy Land" from Muslim rule and were originally launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia." Re-cap-tur-ing, that's right, while I agree that the crusades were an enormity, the Christians weren't the initial aggressors.
      • EarlOfLade, on 11/16/2007, -14/+13All religions are violent.
        All religions are bad.
        All religions are based in bronze age myths
        All religions are tools to control people and to extort money.

        Get rid of the burden of these thousand year old myths and start living in reality, people!
      • EarlOfLade, on 11/16/2007, -7/+1
      • diggerine, on 11/16/2007, -9/+3Don't you love it when some jackass pretends his stance is more peaceful than others?
        Like this dick. The implication is that somehow Christianity is NOT the religion of peace.
        Like most things, it all comes down to WHO we are talking about.
        The actions of atheist dictators were bloody and violent and atheist driven, as was Mao's Cultural Revolution.
        Vile abusive acts of torture took place "for" atheism.
        Pretending that you don't get it just makes things more difficult.
        You thought it was clever, but I'm letting you know it wasn't.
      • Crisender111, on 11/16/2007, -1/+3Q5.1 - Identify the one common relationship between the following pairs (2 Marks)

        Day - Night
        Big - Small
        Clean - Dirty
        Islam - Peace
    • source1984, on 11/15/2007, -23/+17Islam is a peaceful religion. The Saudis DON'T represent Islam. The woman should've been let free and the men should've been punished, according to Islamic law. This is some crazy ruling by some crazy judge.
      • blackhawk919, on 11/15/2007, -7/+12Where does Wahhabism come from again? The religion is the law.
        • source1984, on 11/16/2007, -2/+2Well, you're oversimplifying it. Wahabbism is an "interpretation" of the religious law. There are other religious scholars (the majority) who would denounce this ruling and rule otherwise, according to "religion". So same religion, but different rulings.
        • blackhawk919, on 11/16/2007, -0/+2But source1984 you say that based on what? I'd love to believe that's true, but from everything I know what you've said is just not the case. Can you point in the direction of the majority of Saudi scholars who would denounce this ruling? These sort of rulings are NOT unusual in most countries governed by Sharia.
      • zeffy5, on 11/15/2007, -8/+19Perhaps the great majority of Muslims are peaceful, and want peace, and want Islam to be a peaceful religion. But the fact is that Islam is far from peaceful. Do you know anything about Muhammad's life? Have you read the Qur'an? Do you know what the doctrine of abrogation is? There is no way out of this it...

        This is Islam, don't deny it. I am not calling Muslims as a people group violent, but Islam certainly is.
        • bingo000, on 11/16/2007, -6/+5The Quran described a lot of stories of which some were stories about the course of wars Muhammad and his followers went through to spread or defend Islam. In today's world ideally we'd like to think that Islam is peaceful but just another fine example of being narrow minded and oblivious to the world we live in today comes from the spiritual center of Islam to confirm otherwise!

          Yes Islam was violent some 1400 yeas ago for the reason to spread the religion! Now we have Internet and we use it to fetch porn instead!
        • Bodhinature, on 11/16/2007, -5/+8The same can be said with most Middle Eastern religions, i.e. Judaism and Christianity. All the desert religions are violent religions. Its the people who change the religions.
        • barakatx2, on 11/16/2007, -6/+5Study the Qur'an and hadiths for your entire lifetime and then come back and debate your ideas with the hundreds of scholars that say otherwise.
          • diafel, on 11/16/2007, -2/+10All four schools of Islamic jurisprudence say it is the duty of Muslims to make war on believers and subjugate them.

            Shafi'i school: A Shafi'i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians...until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh ‘Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)...while remaining in their ancestral religions.” ('Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).

            Of course, there is no caliph today, and hence the oft-repeated claim that Osama et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes "obligatory for everyone" ('Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: 'Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until "the final descent of Jesus." After that, "nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent" (o9.8).

            Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”

            However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)

            Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

            Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”

        • Bamborzled, on 11/16/2007, -2/+7Yeah, and Jesus was nailed to a cross and left to die.

          The fact is that all religions started violently, and the religious followers have gotten more "liberal" (for the lack of a better term) over the years. Muslims in the Middle East are the only exception, which is unfortunate.
        • source1984, on 11/16/2007, -4/+3Yes I have read the Qur'an, hadith, Muhammad (pbuh)'s biography. If Muslims were to actually follow the Qur'an, you wouldn't have all this violence, REALLY. Now you may get your islam from Jihadwatch or self-interpretations with you elementary knowledge of the Arabic language. I, however, get my knowledge from Islamic scholars who have studied the religion for centuries. lol. Of course I know what abrogation is. What does that have to do with 'no way out of this.' You're naive. Learn more. Grow more. Read the British scholar Martin Ling's biography on Muhammad (pbuh), one of the best biographies on Muhammad in the English language. Read the Qur'an with Abdullah Yusuf Ali's English translation commentary and direct your questions to a scholar, not some anti-Islamic crazy with a sick political agenda. Lings by the way ended up converting to Islam, may God bless him.
        • blackhawk919, on 11/16/2007, -1/+1@source1984,

          That's wonderful, and I don't doubt that many people here would agree with you if they had you're knowledge. But they are not the problem. The problem is that there are many Islamists with you're knowledge and they completely disagree with you. It's not our interpretation of anything that explains jihadist violence.
    • Jumile, on 11/15/2007, -9/+5Following on from what others have said above is response to this stupid post... moving ahead in time from the Crusades. What about the Inquisition or Salem, or any of the other recent (historically speaking) Christian-led atrocities? And recent (generationally speaking) we only have to look at the Bush dynasty... an oil man father as President and his Herman Munster love child as President not long after.
      • rlh1, on 11/15/2007, -2/+7
        The Iraqi and Afghan wars are not a good example, the US conquered these nations and allowed Islam to be the state religion, in their constitution if I'm not mistaken.
        Could you name the current Christian led atrocities ?
        • Murdats, on 11/16/2007, -6/+2america is fairly atrocious, and fairly christian.
          and if you look at it this way, you have a massive crime right compared to most of the world
          you also have a massive amount of christians compared to most of the world.
        • blackhawk919, on 11/16/2007, -2/+6@Murdats
          ok doofus and you have MASSIVE innovation compared to the rest of the world. You have a country who spends more in foreign aid to help those in need than ANY OTHER COUNTRY. You have more charitable organizations. ON AND ON AND ON. You have a world leader in every sense of the word.
        • cranium, on 11/16/2007, -4/+2- The war on terror
          - The war on drugs
        • diafel, on 11/16/2007, -2/+4"What about the Inquisition or Salem, or any of the other recent (historically speaking) Christian-led atrocities?"

          Less than 3000 people were killed in over 300 years during the Spanish Inquisition. 20 people died in the Salem witch trials. Jihadists kill that many people every year.
        • sounditout, on 11/16/2007, -4/+4do you honestly think that only 20 people died during the Salem witch trials? you do know that Salem was just one of the cities that this happened in right?
        • blackhawk919, on 11/16/2007, -0/+2@sounditout,

          There's still no comparison. But that's still beside the point. There are no witch trials or Inquisitions today. Are we obligated, to turn our head to jihadist violence and tell ourselves "well, we're really no better" because of the actions of a few of our ancestors a hundred years ago or more?
    • Tetraca, on 11/16/2007, -8/+10Placing the words 'peace' and 'religion' in the same sentance creates a paradox just like placing the words 'myspace' and 'smart' together.
      • source1984, on 11/16/2007, -4/+5Thats bias right there. I can take the negativities of any thing and say its all bad. Religion obviously has its good. It uplifts the spirit. It gives people hope. To you in your comfortable little couch, going online, reading Nietsczhe (spelling?), passing philosophical comments based on your single experience, .. to you, religion is useless. To a poor Bangladeshi boy who has literally no hope, no future, who will most likely end up making pots his whole life (and he literally knows he will do this and nothing else), religion is whats gets him through. He hopes, prays for a good after-life. In your disbelief of this, you live up and enjoy your current life -- because you can, you have the will and resources to.

        I can take all the evils of America and say, "Oh, placing the words 'good' and 'America' in the same sentence is a paradox'. Though America has done its fair share of evil, its an upright democratic nation.

        anything, i can say the same about anything.
    • Matthew720, on 11/16/2007, -12/+7Saudi Arabia isn't the only unsavory ally we have in the M.E.. Israel's human rights track record pales in comparison. German bishops recently visited Israel and said that the treatment the Palestinians get is on par with what the Jews received under Nazi rule.
      • Gotno, on 11/16/2007, -5/+6You mean that the Holocaust didn't actually happen, right?

        /just sayin'
      • Pinhedd, on 11/16/2007, -4/+7Yes but the Palestinians keep firing rockets and asking for more.
        • Matthew720, on 11/16/2007, -5/+4Asking for more eh? Tell you what, when someone invades your home in the middle of the night and kicks you out, don't go calling the police or fighting back. Accept it and shut up, because might makes right. If you do decide to fight back I'll just say that you're asking for more.
      • Matthew720, on 11/16/2007, -5/+2These are the kind of responses I'd expect from people who haven't any brain cells. pinhedd is aptly named. DO you know what a military occupation means? Gotno's making an assumption and is making himself look like an ass.
      • blackhawk919, on 11/16/2007, -0/+4Please make those comparisons Mathew720. I'd like to know when Israel sent a Palestinian woman to jail after they lashed her because she was the victim of a crime. There is no comparison between how Israel treats Palestinians (people not of their country) and how Saudi treats it's own women.
    • Rossoneri22, on 11/16/2007, -9/+2Why are people digging this idiot up? If you want to bash religion, bash all religions, they are all twisted and abused by those seeking to exploit their influence. Bush speaks to a Christian God, is what he's doing better than what was done to this person?
      • blackhawk919, on 11/16/2007, -0/+4I'd say you can't compare the two. Although here is something from Michael Yon in Iraq:
        "Tonight, 14 November 2007, we patrolled with members of the Iraqi National Police. All along the way people were happy to see us. Stores were opening. Kids were playing soccer or following us block after block. Some adults were playing ping-pong here and there, while others welcomed us to talk, including a couple of older Iraqi women who talked on and on and on, until finally the soldiers had to make an excuse to leave. I’ve seen this in many places in Iraq. When the older women get a chance to tell about their neighborhood, they want to tell about the whole neighborhood – on and on and on. Sometimes the soldiers make fake radio calls so they can leave."

        Granted Bush did not personally make this happen but it is the result of his decisions. I cannot find a similar result to what happened to the Saudi woman.
    • DMCer, on 11/16/2007, -0/+6These are the same idiotic Saudi Sharia laws that allowed this to happen:
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1874471.stm
  • gregwebber, on 11/15/2007, -86/+24What can we expect from a country who just recently lived in tents before oil.There nothing but animals and eventually we will go to war with these Muslim dogs. So grease your bullets with pork lard and get ready to nuke Mecca.
    • mightydavefish, on 11/15/2007, -13/+35And what can you expect from ignorant right wing losers who don't know the first thing about the history of the Middle East?
      You can google some of the advances made in that area of the world, I'm sick of schooling morons.
    • nblsavage, on 11/15/2007, -12/+30I dislike any religion and I despise what the Saudis allow, but I also despise ignorance.
      In mathematics, the Arab sifr, or zero, provided new solutions for complicated mathematical problems. The Arabic numeral – an improvement on the original Hindu concept – and the Arab decimal system facilitated the course of science. The Arabs invented and developed algebra and made great strides in trigonometry. Al-Khwarizmi, credited with the founding of algebra, was inspired by the need to find a more accurate and comprehensive method of ensuring precise land divisions so that the Koran could be carefully obeyed in the laws of inheritance. The writings of Leonardo da Vinci, Leonardo Fibonacci of Pisa, and Master Jacob of Florence show the Arab influence on mathematical studies in European universities. The reformation of the calendar, with a margin of error of only one day in five thousand years, was also a contribution of Arab intellect.
      Like algebra, the astrolabe was improved with religion in mind. It was used to chart the precise time of sunrises and sunsets, and to determine the period for fasting during the month of Ramadan, Arab astronomers of the Middle Ages compiles astronomical charts and tables in observatories such as those at Palmyra and Maragha. Gradually, they were able to determine the length of a degree, to establish longitude and latitude, and to investigate the relative speeds of sound and light. Al-Biruni, considered one of the greatest scientists of all time, discussed the possibility of the earth’s rotation on its own axis – a theory proven by Galileo six centuries later. Arab astronomers such as al-Fezari, al-Farghani, and al-Zarqali added to the works of Ptolemy and the classic pioneers in the development of the magnetic compass and the charting of the zodiac. Distinguished astronomers from all over the world gathered to work at Maragha in the thirteenth century.
      • CraigJ, on 11/15/2007, -13/+6So, do their contributions to science excuse barbaric, lower than animal behavior?
        • nblsavage, on 11/15/2007, -5/+11This was in response to the jackass claiming "a country who just recently lived in tents before oil."
          I also said I despise their behavior, but depicting them as primitive is inaccurate.
      • diafel, on 11/16/2007, -2/+8Although there is no arguing that the Muslim world was more advanced during this period than the “Christian” world, the reasons for this have absolutely nothing to do with the Islamic religion (other than its mandate for military expansion). In fact, the religion actively discourages knowledge outside of itself, which is why the greatest Muslim scholars throughout history tend to be students of religion rather than science.

        First, the Muslim world benefited greatly from the Greek sciences, which were translated for them by Christians and Jews. To their credit, Muslims did a better job of preserving Greek text than did the Europeans of the time, and this became the foundation for their own knowledge. (One large reason for this, however, was that access by Christians to this part of their world was cut off by the Muslim slave ships and coastal raids that dominated the Mediterranean during this period).

        Secondly, many of the scientific advances credited to Islam were actually “borrowed” from other cultures conquered by the Muslims. The algebraic concept of “zero”, for example, is erroneously attributed to Islam, but it was, in fact, created by the Hindus and merely introduced to the West by Muslims - along with the products of other cultures that were found to be useful to their new rulers.

        In fact, conquered populations contributed greatly to the history of “Muslim science” until gradually being decimated by conversion to Islam (under the pressures of dhimmitude). The Muslim concentration within a population is directly proportional to the decline of scientific achievement. It is no accident that the Muslim world has had little to show for itself in the last 600 years or so, since running out of new civilizations to cannibalize.

        Third, even the great Muslim scientists and icons were often considered heretics in their time, sometimes for good reason. One of the greatest achievers to come out of the Muslim world was the Iranian scientist and philosopher, al-Razi. His impressive works are often held up today as “proof” of Muslim accomplishment. But what the apologists often leave out is that al-Razi was denounced as a blasphemer, since he followed his own religious beliefs – which were in obvious contradiction to traditional Islam.

        Fourth, even the contributions that are attributed to Islam (often inaccurately) are not terribly dramatic. There is the invention of certain words, such as alchemy and elixir, but not much else that survives in modern technology that is of any practical significance. Neither is there any reason to believe that such discoveries would not have easily been made by the West following the cultural awakening triggered by the Reformation.

        As an example of this, consider that Muslims claim credit for coffee, since the beans were discovered in Africa (at the time, an important source for Islamic slave trading) and first processed in the Middle East. While this is true, it is also true that the red dye used in many food products, from cranberry juice to candy, comes from the abdomen of a particular female beetle found in South America. It is extremely unlikely that the West would not have stumbled across coffee by now (although, to be fair, coffee probably expedited subsequent discoveries).

        In fact, the litany of “Muslim” achievement often takes the form of rhapsody, in which the true origins of these discoveries are omitted - along with their comparative significance to Western achievement. Scientific, medical and technological accomplishments are not something over which Muslim apologists want to get into a pissing contest with the Christian world. Today’s Islamic innovators are known merely for turning Western technology, such as cell phones and airplanes, into instruments of mass murder.

        To sum up, although the Islamic religion is not entirely hostile to science, neither should it be confused as a facilitator. The great achievements that are said to have come out of the Islamic world were made either by non-Muslims who happened to be under Islamic rule, or by heretics who usually had little interest in Islam. Scientific discovery tapers off dramatically as Islam asserts dominance, until it eventually peters out altogether.
      • thaker, on 11/16/2007, -0/+7I disapprove of gregwebber's unnecessary insults but you seem like you're trying too hard to find a silver lining here. I have nothing against muslims and I acknowledge and appreciate the advances they HAVE actually made. However attributing baseless inventions to them does not make for a good argument.

        1. As others have said, the zero is a hindu invention.
        2. What exactly did they improve upon as far as the hindu system of decimal placement goes?
        3. The Astrolabe was invented by Hipparchus, even before Christ, leave alone Islam.

        I don't care enough to dig further into some of your other assertions but you get the idea. In either case, the fact that your (nblsavage) post is dugg much higher and everyone else seems to have negative diggs (including this one soon enough i'm sure) is very telling of the mentality of liberals who seem to prefer to blindly credit discoveries and inventions to a 'disadvantaged' civilization, than seek pure factual truth.

        I'm sure many others besides you on this board have convinced themselves of similar claims in the past to subconsciously counter-balance, at least in their own minds, the daily news stories profilerating in the media these days about muslims and their supposedly 'barbaric' practices.
    • OMGWTFROFLMAOx2, on 11/15/2007, -2/+35I'm sure you'll be on the front lines, typing furiously and hurling emoticons at the enemy.
    • iFrikkenR, on 11/16/2007, -1/+5How is your intolerance any better than theirs?

      Ass.
    • Matthew720, on 11/16/2007, -2/+6Saudi Arabia isn't the only unsavory ally we have in the M.E.. Israel's human rights track record pales in comparison. German bishops recently visited Israel and said that the treatment the Palestinians get is on par with what the Jews received under Nazi rule.
    • Pitofdoom, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1You intolerant war mongering evildoer !
  • coit, on 11/15/2007, -8/+164What is it they say???

    "She was asking for it."

    Yeah, that's it. How dare she get in a car with an unrelated male. Such nerve in these young people.
    • primaldefense, on 11/15/2007, -2/+20exactly.. i bet getting into the car wasn't even her idea... problems like this was one of the issues why Turkey beecame such a great country after the reform to have a secular government, crimes that were actual crimes were the only item that their judicial system had to worry about, not wearing the right clothes and other things that islamic law forbids no longer held people from working towards freedom and better lives.
    • gmiley, on 11/15/2007, -9/+6Her mouth said "No", but her eyes said "Yes"...
    • pandikukka, on 11/16/2007, -3/+3wtf...there is a slim line between religious belief and ignorance, I see that Saudi court has failed to identify this
    • reaperer, on 11/16/2007, -3/+0wait, if she asked for it then it was consensual right? ... wow this is retarted
    • allengeer, on 11/16/2007, -0/+4note to self. if raped in saudi arabia, keep mouth shut and go on about your business. thats one hell of a way to keep the courts empty: if you complain we punish you too. if she had raped them, then that would mean they would get the 200 lashings right? so primitive.
  • jimmyjay, on 11/15/2007, -22/+24So long as Bush hold hands with the ruling family, an injustice too someone outside the 'power loop' will hardly be noticed.

    But the real trump card remains the flow of oil - - so we don't have anything worth complaining about here. And women will always hold the bottom rung of power.
    • pjr12345, on 11/15/2007, -8/+9Yours is a very compelling argument for the increase of the domestic production, refinement and delivery of petroleum and other proven energy sources. We should start by opening up ANWR and the Gulf for drilling, easing environmental regulations for refinery construction, and reconsidering our regulations hampering both coal-fired and nuclear power plant construction.
    • bingobongony, on 11/15/2007, -3/+14Yeah...this sort of thing never happened until Bush became president.
      • commernie, on 11/15/2007, -6/+3Strawman. 'jimmyjay' never implied anything of the sort.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 11/15/2007, -1/+4Sure, the opression of women in the middles east will end right after we stop buying oil from them. They will see the lost revenue and change thousands of years of culture bercause of it.

      Your logic is fatally flawed, go back to the drawing board.
    • YojimboJango, on 11/16/2007, -0/+5I think everyone is missing the big point, so i'll say it in ALLCAPS.
      THIS DID NOT HAPPEN IN THE USA. THIS IS NOT THE USA'S CONCERN. WE DO NOT NEED TO INVADE THIS COUNTRY BECAUSE OF THIS.
      Yes this is horrible, but the people of that country need to stand up for their selves. We can't do it for them no matter how much these bleeding heart nut jobs want to help. This is their culture, not ours. We can't force our religion of commercialism onto devout believers in Islam, and no matter how you wrap it up that's how they'll see it as if you even think of stepping in to help.
  • marcolino, on 11/15/2007, -28/+8They should let the victim do the whipping.
    • coit, on 11/15/2007, -0/+24So she should whip herself? Guess you didn't RTA.
    • sockpuppets, on 11/15/2007, -1/+21Epic fail, you didn't even read the headline.
    • ck314, on 11/15/2007, -1/+14maybe shes a masochist..... but then she would receive pleasure from it, and that would also be a crime
  • meltlight, on 11/15/2007, -6/+78this is what oil funds...
    • tracker198x, on 11/16/2007, -6/+1i wonder if she was lashed with sticks of penises
    • tracker198x, on 11/16/2007, -6/+1i wonder if she was lashed with sticks of penises
  • tomasII, on 11/15/2007, -49/+115I can hear the American feminists protesting now......Oh wait they are silent about muslim abuses of women
    • sbader, on 11/15/2007, -9/+87Dude you don't even know the half of it. There are lots of feminist organizations that are working to help women in these countries. You just don't hear about them like MADRE http://www.madre.org/ no body wants to report on feminism doing good things they prefer to report on the bad then complain that feminists aren't doing anything without looking to see if they are doing anything. In fact i found the link for this article in feminist blog.
      • gwenny, on 11/15/2007, -3/+24Exactly! I received three or four newsletters a day from various feminist organizations that report news and do humanitarian work in the Middle East.
        • blitzkriegpunk, on 11/15/2007, -14/+7OH YEAH?!? Well, I receive four feminist newsletters an HOUR! How's about _that_ *****?
        • GoblinJuice, on 11/15/2007, -6/+11Let me translate the phrase "do humanitarian work in the Middle East" for the non-leftist crowd: It's a bunch of old, ugly, white, ex-hippie sluts from America going to the Middle East on vacation, taking pictures of the local girls in burqas and discussing - amongst themselves - how things would be better if President Bush wasn't the President.

          Hope that helps! =D
      • tomasII, on 11/16/2007, -7/+8So where are the protests? Where are the leading feminsts.....are they being silenced by the media? Come on now you can't really believe that.
      • tesuji05, on 11/16/2007, -0/+2Can I add to that the political gay community? If you think being a rape victim in saudi arabia is bad you should see what happens to the guys who like taking it up the pooper.
    • OMGLINUXWOAH, on 11/15/2007, -15/+8OH YEAH well I don't give a ***** about feminism. Until there's a masculinist movement you bitches are on your own.
      • sbader, on 11/15/2007, -2/+4You should look into some of the Mens rights associations, they are out there.
        • OMGLINUXWOAH, on 11/15/2007, -8/+3I'm not so much looking for equality as I am looking for unreasonable advantage. Similar to the feminist movement.
      • robberry, on 11/16/2007, -1/+2"Not a fan of the ladies, are you, Trebek?"
    • pimpdown, on 11/16/2007, -3/+12You are an uniformed douche bag. Amy Goodman, Sonali Kohatkar and many others have reported on the abuse of women in Muslim countries. Fems were doing it before September 11. Did most of America? Do you recall that the Taliban were guest in this country?
      • fullphaser, on 11/16/2007, -0/+2Well you usually are a guest when you belong to the governing body of a sovereign nation, we forget that all to often.
      • tomasII, on 11/16/2007, -1/+2Oh so they are reporting on abuses of women... Hurrah for them. Your ad hominem attack just makes you look ignorant. It sure seems like the feminists don't care about the plight of abused muslim women. No protests at the Saudi embassy, no protest anywhere unless it fits in with their left wing political agenda. So put that in your pipe and attempt to light it.
        • Warriorfemme, on 12/01/2007, -0/+0Presumably you agree that women are abused.
          Why then should it be necessary for feminists alone to have the responsibility for stopping the abuse - surely
          injustice and cruelty is everyone's business.
          Why aren't you getting off your whopping fat arse and doing something constructive
          instead of fiddling around trying to belittle those who do champion justice - thereby
          reinforcing the type of misogynistic thinking that perpetuates abuse of all women
          everywhere.
          GET A SPINE and make yourself useful dumbkoff.
  • kithogan, on 11/15/2007, -47/+16This is the face of our enemy.......bastards from the middle ages.....they cannot be reasoned with, they must be destroyed before they destroy us...................moslems live in darkness...................
    • kaelyiesta, on 11/15/2007, -7/+25You are exactly what bush and the other PNAC neocons want Americans to be.
    • Chassit, on 11/15/2007, -3/+10You appear to be no different.
    • moskaudancer, on 11/16/2007, -2/+9Dude, Arabia is a desert. It's pretty bright there most of the day.
    • licnyc, on 11/16/2007, -0/+3I don't get it- aren't the saudis all buddy buddy with the bush family. He was ready to hand over US ports to them. A lot of his business interest was vested within the middle east. I don't understand how you can have blanket hate for a culture and stand with leaders who seem to just be taking you for a ride
    • Pitofdoom, on 11/16/2007, -1/+1Are you another war mongering intolerant red neck evildoer ?
  • mattewood, on 11/15/2007, -1/+96If that's the kind of punishment you get for speaking publicly about your nightmarish ordeal, just imagine how many women *never* speak out.

    Reason would infer that this happens every day, though the story is never told. Truly sad, and this nation (Saudi Arabia) is one of America's best friends.

    Shouldn't best friends speak up when a friend is completely out of line?
    • commernie, on 11/15/2007, -1/+7Not when that friend is generating millions of dollars for your corporations ;).
      • topiKal, on 11/16/2007, -0/+4Yes, exactly. We are not "best friends" with the Saudis. They make us a hell of a lot of money, which is why our higher-ups keep their mouths shut about everything that goes on over there.

        I certainly don't condone this attitude, but that's the way of it.
        • elint6, on 11/16/2007, -0/+2more like they rip us off.... OPEC is a cartel led by the Saudis. Cartels are illegal in the U.S.
  • stutimandal, on 11/15/2007, -41/+51Where are the pseudo liberals who say Moslems respect woman and it is a religion of peace? Show this to them.
    • gitonga, on 11/15/2007, -12/+9It's MUSLIM'S geez!
      • djAnakin, on 11/15/2007, -4/+5You're wrong. There are several correct spellings.
      • TheLoneHoot, on 11/16/2007, -0/+3I don't get it. You're saying that "geez" belongs to muslims?
    • source1984, on 11/15/2007, -12/+34I'm a Muslim and Islam does respect women. The Saudis don't represent Islam. Really, the Saudis promote their Wahabism, which is a big minority in the Islamic scholarly world. According to traditional Islam, the woman should've been free and the men should've been punished, as common sense would dictate. This is ridiculous.
      • jerryterhorst, on 11/15/2007, -8/+11And if you followed the strictest interpretation's of the Bible, you would do some ***** up ***** too. Just because a nation is extremely fundamentalist does not make it representative of the entire religion. But it does show you just how ***** up our country would be if we REALLY caved to the extreme religious right (not Christians--the people who follow the Bible to the letter).
        • GenericNumber1, on 11/16/2007, -1/+1I'm pretty sure the Bible states that Jesus told the people NOT to stone the adulterous woman, "let he who is without sin throw the first stone" and all that. I'm no Bible expert, where does it say these things that you are referring to?
      • faithfreedom, on 11/16/2007, -7/+3"Wahabism, which is a big minority". Is it like Catholic is a big minority in Christendom ?
      • elint6, on 11/16/2007, -1/+1are you a shi'ia by any chance? thought so.
      • Wacer, on 11/16/2007, -1/+4You say it your way but the Islamic world is all but silent about issues like this.
    • jerryterhorst, on 11/15/2007, -6/+9And if you followed the strictest interpretations of the Bible, you would do some ***** up ***** too. Just because a nation is extremely fundamentalist does not make it representative of an entire religion. But it does show you just how ***** up our country would be if we REALLY caved to the extreme religious right (not the average Christian, rather the people who follow the Bible to the letter).
      • Smartie1953, on 11/29/2007, -0/+0Come on, whacko. The bible NEVER suggests punishment of victims. Quit talking out of ignorance. I interpret the boble to the letter, and never have I seen such a suggestion. This is a common problem. People saying Christian fundamentalists are as bad as other fundamentalists. Hogwash. What Chrisitan fundamentalist beheads people?
        • Oldskool454, on 11/29/2007, -0/+0Really? allow me to pint out...
          Deuteronomy 22:23-24
          If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
    • SpudgeBoy, on 11/15/2007, -3/+10No Democrat has said that dip *****. Hannity said a Democrat said it and you believe him just liek the dumb ***** you are.
    • whathappened, on 11/15/2007, -2/+7source1984 got it right. Although wahabis have control of saudi arabia they do not represent a majority of the muslims today. these wahabis make up less than 1% of muslims in the world and took power only with the help of western generals. see here: http://shootmethensearchme.blogspot.com/2007/06/ar ...
      • Iconoclast25, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1SO WHAT? The al queada vermin are largely (all?) sunni while the crazies in iran are predominantly shia . . . and when they aren't killing non-muslims, they're fighting the thousand-plus year civil war about which leader islam should have followed at some juncture of Iron Age history which is of interest only to them. Barbarians with fuel, nothing more. The sooner the civilized world weans itself from oil, the sooner the saudis and their pals will be back herding goats in the desert.
    • Chaoticfist, on 11/16/2007, -4/+7For the record i am a Catholic. Many of my friends are muslims. I can tell you with absolute confidence that most muslims are peaceful and do not support things like this. Countries like Saudis Arabia do not represent Islam, just like how war mongering christans do not represent Christianity.
  • dangoldfinch, on 11/15/2007, -28/+21What loser could possibly blame this on Pres Bush? Get a life. Why not blame it on the feminists who are not out there raising their voices in protest? Where is the rage? Where are the cries of 'Shame!' and 'Justice!' When are people going to wake up to the reality of what Islam is really about in this world?
    • sbader, on 11/15/2007, -5/+22I hate repeating myself, thank goodness for copy and paste. "There are lots of feminist organizations that are working to help women in these countries. You just don't hear about them like MADRE http://www.madre.org/ no body wants to report on feminism doing good things they prefer to report on the bad then complain that feminists aren't doing anything without looking to see if they are doing anything. In fact i found the link for this article in feminist blog."
      • kaelyiesta, on 11/15/2007, -3/+13Normally I don't digg duplicate comments, but in this case it is justified.
      • gnick, on 11/15/2007, -4/+2Normally I don't digg duplicate comments, but in this case it is justified.
        • pintomp3, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1two accounts? with a dash of irony.
      • kramo1, on 11/15/2007, -0/+0copy pasta?
    • nblsavage, on 11/15/2007, -2/+9I can blame him for supporting the Saud government with MY money.
    • commernie, on 11/15/2007, -1/+6Hey dumb-ass, the American government has been a key figure in keeping the current regime in Saudi Arabia in place. You see, they are very friendly to American corporations and thus can count on support from Washington. That regime wouldn't last a decade without US support. So not only will I blame it on Bush, but also on Clinton, Bush I and Reagan.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1Hey dumb-ass, it's a culture thing. New government over there is going to change all this whacky cro-magnon BS? Keep dreaming.
        • vasilisa13, on 11/22/2007, -0/+0no it isn't a 'culture thing' -- there were relatively liberal societies (in the moral, not in the political sense) in the Middle East 30-40 years ago, in countries you would consider 'backward': Iran, Afghanistan etc. dogmatism, ideology, authoritarianism: these are the problems, but they can be addressed. there is nothing about the people themselves that inherently prevents them from adopting different forms of social organisation. assuming that they can never change is dangerous because, at the extreme, it gives you the perceived prerogative to bomb them to pieces (a bit like the 'logic' behind capital punishment).
          in fact, in response to some of the other comments, this is what 'tolerance' truly means: understanding history, subtleties, potential and above all, humanity, instead of stereotyping people as 'cro-magnons' or 'sand-rats'. unfortunately the idea of tolerance has been perverted and exaggerated beyond recognition, mostly by its detractors. tolerance does not entail the automatic acceptance of 'difference' without judgment, but to the contrary, requires an active and critical view of the world.
  • Legalbgl, on 11/15/2007, -17/+17Where is Gloria Steinem on this? Why isnt Code Pink yelling?
  • lindsay4767, on 11/15/2007, -12/+57well shiite
    • 42Vindictive, on 11/15/2007, -2/+9Dugg for horrible pun.
      • directedition, on 11/16/2007, -0/+3Ahh, remembering that CNN headline: "Holy Shiite Mosque bombed in Iraq." I guess being a mosque wasn't indication enough that it was a holy place, they felt compelled to clarify that.
    • Christ0s, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1actually i think they are sunni
      • TheLoneHoot, on 11/16/2007, -1/+3She is sunni the men and apparently the judge(s) are shia.
        • lerker, on 11/16/2007, -0/+2Other way round. See:
          " Last year, the court sentenced six Saudi men to between one and five years in jail for the rape as well as ordering lashes for the victim, a member of the minority Shiite community."
          And:
          "The convicted men are Sunni Muslims, the dominant community in the oil-rich Gulf state."
      • TruthforAll, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1Then she meant.. Sunniva bitch!
  • Rich711, on 11/15/2007, -19/+18Either all people are equal or all societies are equal you cant have it both ways. It is multicultural pc ***** that keeps the media, feminists, liberals, and amnisty international silent on crimes against women and homosexuals in the middle east. Now if the crimes were against terrorist suspects.... Image if the prisoners that were caught in the company of known terrorists got the same treatment as a woman in the company of an unrelated man. Oh, the outrage that would ensue.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 11/15/2007, -3/+6Yup. Embrace diversity no matter what is what I've been told for 28 years in my state..
    • mGARANDEUR1, on 11/16/2007, -1/+9yes, Americans are such terrible and iImperialistic people, unlike those innocent terrorist
    • fatdog789, on 11/16/2007, -2/+5Yeah...it's not like Amnesty International was the source of this article or anything...Or that this event represents everything that liberals, feminists, and the liberal media fight against.
      • Rich711, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1Yeah Opera and Jay Leno's wife would be on television about it twice a yearabout womens rights in the MIddle East, then we invaded Afganistan and suddenly the subject went quiet. It doesnt get discussed by either since as if by talking about it the are either offending or endorseing Bush.
  • AllYourBase3, on 11/15/2007, -23/+30Islam is a religion of peace am i rite?
    • clayasaurus, on 11/16/2007, -3/+4So is Christianity.
    • xenuxenuts, on 11/16/2007, -5/+6There is no religion of peace.
    • Iconoclast25, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1U R "rite" only if you are being sarcastic.
    • dgp1, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1No, apparently you're "rong."
    • 8thAAFWW2, on 11/20/2007, -0/+0You also enable these Islamic Fascists every time you vote down drilling in ANWAR, stop offshore Drilling in the US or stop the processing of domestic scale oil. We MUST start a crash program of obtaining our domestic resources (As well as conservation & alternative forms of energy) so we can insure our future & not give these "people" our money.
  • badassninja, on 11/15/2007, -13/+4Next on fox....
    • bingobongony, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3what does that even mean? How is that a shot at Fox?
  • laterthandawn, on 11/15/2007, -2/+10That headline just made my head tingle.

    And not in a good way. Like in a "Bruce Banner" kind of way.
  • stutimandal, on 11/15/2007, -6/+20To Speaker city:

    Christians may have burnt people calling them witches. But with time they moved on. They reformed and agreed that it is a bad idea.

    Morons should understand that fundamentalism does not means not doing anything wrong. We all commit mistakes. Morons should understand that not accepting mistakes and not correcting them is fundamentalism.
    • commernie, on 11/15/2007, -8/+8No they didn't "move on". Rational people had to stop them. I'm guessing they said something like: "stop burning women or we will beat your ass to a pulp, *****!". Rational people in the Saudi Arabia will do the same thing eventually.
      • rush378, on 11/16/2007, -1/+1No, people just realized how stupid they all were after a while. Witch-burning was like a fad that went stale.
    • browwiw, on 11/15/2007, -0/+7Use the the reply function.
    • smaxl, on 11/15/2007, -5/+5Yep, good point. All people who follow organized religion do really dumb ***** things
  • floridiot2, on 11/15/2007, -14/+8Thank God for religion.
    • sockpuppets, on 11/15/2007, -4/+16Thank religion for God.
      • PhonicUK, on 11/15/2007, -4/+14Thank common sense for Atheism
        • TheLoneHoot, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1@ LivingHealthy So by your "logic" atheism started in the late 1800s?
    • B1GR3D, on 11/16/2007, -0/+2hmm. sorry. floridiot some people don't recognize sarcasm. dugg u up.
    • Pitofdoom, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1GOD is not religious !
  • SpaceDreamer, on 11/15/2007, -3/+50and you pay these guys every time you refill your gas guzzler.
    • djAnakin, on 11/15/2007, -4/+4I'll go ahead and assume that you don't ever drive or ride in a car.. that you walk or ride abike everywhere.
      • pintomp3, on 11/16/2007, -1/+6maybe his car isn't a gas guzzling penis extension.