Massive Fires In Saudi Arabia - Aramco Oil Facilities Hit By Drones

It will be Israel that starts the war. Did you not know that Obama narrowly stopped an Israeli attack by telling Bibi he was on his own. Bibi was locked and loaded then one of his generals off-handedly suggested that maybe they should check with the Americans first. Bibi never forgave Obama for refusing to sanction his illegal aggression.

KSA already has a war. They are just losing that war despite all the sophisticated US weaponry. Clearly they are terrible at it and would love nothing more than getting the US to fight their battles for them.

Clearly you are here to deny facts and shill for the Wahhabi kingdom. You don't mind seeing women beheaded in public square........or are you going to tell me that doesn't happen either?

 

Are you also opposed to capital punishment in the US?

 

Yes.

 

Are you aggressively trying to changed capital punishment in the US?

 

I'm not American. For me to fix America they would need to come to their senses and politely ask me to be dictator for life in order to save the country from itself. When things get so bad you can't take it any more, just call America.

I should qualify that there are some crimes I think warrant a death penalty. Just not adultery or defaming religion. That being said, I live in a country with no death penalty and we do just fine.

And I don't thing stoning to death or public beheadings are the way to go.

 

Well, why don't you fix America before you fix Saudi Arabia?

 

So you are good with public executions then?

 

Don't oversell the Israelis. First, Israel does not have the capability to fight a war with Iran. They can start one, but will need the Americans to finish it for them. That is common ground on all sides, even the Isaeli side. Second, Netanyahu never had any support for war against Iran from his own military or cabinet. What he did, effectively, however, was to pretend he was going to war to force the Americans to play to the tune he wanted them to play. And to drag everyone else around the world with him. Finally, fed up with his threats, the US even told him on several occasions: go ahead, do as you please. Just don't ask for our help.

The Israelis are a more sophisticated version of the Saudis. Or the UAE. Ultimately, all dependencies are the same. When UAE tankers started blowing up, the UAE was the first to jump ship, and switch from being one of the biggest advocates of confronting Iran, to one of the loudest voices within the American coalition preaching restraint. The Saudis have also been having a lot of second thoughts the past few weeks, but this incident just made it all clear to them where they stand. And that is not at all where they stood a few months ago, or when Trump was first elected and they thought they can have the US do their dirty work for them. The Israelis, in the meantime, have not yet been directly confronted by Iran. Hezbollah has confronted them and called their bluff. But their turn will come. I have already said this clearly. And when it comes, they too will jump ship. No doubt about it in my mind.

 

Actually, just because a practice isn't in vogue in the West anymore, doesn't mean it doesn't have merit. Public executions naturally offend people's sensitivities, but if they have a legitimate deterrent effect, I prefer hurting sensitivities to what is gained from that deterrence. Or take lashing. For crimes that aren't ones with high recidivism and ones which aren't committed by someone who is a danger in society and need to be locked up, I prefer lashing to prison. And, frankly, so do many people who have to face a choice between prison (the best place to teach criminals new tricks) and lashing.

The leftist mantra on some issues isn't always the right prescription for society. Just because those on the left have discovered what many clerics had even discovered or felt even many centuries ago, namely that religion and scripture aren't necessarily derived from the sources being claimed, doesn't mean everything the left prescribes is right either! Take this example: Imagine a woman whose husband has battered her. If the husband is the breadwinner in the family, to have him sent to prison isn't an option that will necessarily help the woman either. Lashing the husband, on the other hand, and making him realize he isn't the only one who can use force to get his way, does even the playing field. And that punishment will actually deter him more than something that he knows the wife may never report.

 

The Saudi laws are atrocious, but then again so are the weekend killings in Chicago. Maybe people should look at themselves before making judgement on others.

In the 1930's kidnappings were rampant, and when the Lindbergh baby was killed it became a capital offense. Kidnappings stopped and when I was young baby carriages could be left outside of stores without fear. When a child disappeared in Staten Island in 1963/64, it shocked the whole city.

That was the time prayers were removed from schools, abortions became legal and the Vietnam war started. Any connection? I think so! There had to be some moral downturn.

Twenty years later kidnappings and disappearances were rampant, and schools had guards as protection.

 

Saudi laws are certainly atrocious in my eyes, but as long as they reflect their culture and they aren't being exported somehow, I don't particularly find it any of my business either. Even if they don't reflect the prevailing cultural standards in Saudi Arabia, it is still ultimately up to the Saudis to deal with the issue. But in that case, I would be sympathetic to those who would want to assist them bring about the necessary changes. However, no one can or should forcibly impose a culture on any other society. To do so will require exactly the kind of instruments of power which aren't at all conducive to a society ever developing democratic or even consent based institutions. And that is ultimately a recipe for creating despotism and dictatorship. Something that has always existed in Saudi Arabia but is actually become much worse under the "modernizing" Mohammad bin Salman, who besides his penchant for cutting people into pieces, is apparently forcing some cosmetic changes in Saudi Arabia to quiet down some of that country's critics. As long as change is cosmetic, and not genuine, and as long as it only furthers instruments of despotism, I am not sure a change that appears to be "modernizing" a society is worth the costs.

 

State sponsored murder has never been shown to have deterrence value never mind the number of mistakes.

All you do with violence is teach violence. The guy was probably harmed himself as a child to act in this manner and the woman most certainly will not be best still living with him. I am not necessarily thinking prison is the best answer here either - some kind of mental heath help would possibly be more helpful though probably in a prison type setting. Engaging in public violence only supports more violence. You are wrong to believe hammering him will make him less violent. The woman deserves whatever financial support she needs which the state can provide. That will allow her not to have to stay with people who batter her.

 

For me, mistakes occur with the greatest frequency when you have a system that is overburdened with cases, when the procedures to administer justice become so complicated (and thereby expensive) that you have neither appropriate punishment for the guilty nor appropriate relief for the falsely accused, most cases settled through 'plea bargains', and when you have endemic problems in society that dehumanize those who maybe falsely accused and deprive them of a truly unbiased and non-discriminatory application and enforcement of the law. Whether those mistakes result in capital punishment or prison to me is secondary; the injustice of being falsely convicted by the state the true shame.

Otherwise, life in overcrowded and poorly administered prisons, where criminals rule in concert with corrupted officials and prison guards, isn't so much better. Speaking for myself at least, I prefer an innocent soul to be wrongly put to death and dying innocent (and becoming a symbol or martyr of the system that failed him) than the state turning that innocent soul into a guilty one by putting an innocent person in prison, where he is likely to lose all his innocence.

The real cause of criminal behavior is often a combination of factors, but certainly the environment you have been reared in and the violence and abuse you may have encountered are part of it. While true, and even though I believe people can be rehabilitated and turn a new leaf in life, I don't believe the state has much power of rehabilitation. And prison is the last place to expect any rehabilitation to work. Mental health institutions are also not places where anyone (except those whose malady can be controlled through drugs) can find rehabilitation either. They are just more lax and more expensive prisons.

There are different types of spousal abuse cases. In some, you have a serial batterer who is truly sick. The appropriate way to deal with him is different than a person who uses the physical advantage of being stronger to settle an argument or fight with his spouse. The former case might require prison and, if at all realistic and helpful, some form of rehabilitation. The latter doesn't. In the latter case, if a spouse is aware that his greater ability to inflict violence can redressed by the ability of the state to administer such punishment, he will often be as likely to engage in spousal abuse as he would if fighting with his wife in public. But if experience teaches him that resorting to violence is going to leave his wife with either the choice of calling the police and sending him to prison or doing nothing, his wife is likely to choose the latter, resorting to such violence will become more likely.

But my greatest problem with prison, and where I find lashing to be a more appropriate punishment, relates to the enormous drain on resources and what makes prison populations in many countries (including both Iran and the US) so overcrowded. Namely, drug offenses. I personally believe that drug offenses should be looked at a lot more carefully. In some cases, long prison terms may be the only option. In others, however, a short prison term (to help with kicking the habit) and lashing might be better. In any case, society needs to find better answers than what has emerged in many western countries, led by the United States, where almost 2.5 million people are in prison -- and where crime is still too prevalent.

 

Possible, but it does take a degree of skill and intelligence to use drones to remotely guide cruise missiles, and at the very least, Iran cooperation to launch from inside Iran.

 

Not even close. When I see them hanging, then they will have paid.

 

I seem to remember learning a long time ago that you could judge how just a country was by the severity of its laws. The more severe the laws the less just the country.

The death penalty does not reduce the killing of people. Indeed it is suggested it may increase it.

https://www.amnestyusa.org/a-clear-scientific-consensus-that-the-death-penalty-does-not-deter/

Looking at corporal punishment in children as most countries do not inflict this on adults and several countries already do not inflict this on their children, we find in relation to aggression/ violence that Corporal punishment increases it while having other detrimental effects.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/15/health/spanking-ban-global-youth-violence/index.html

 

My real issue isn't making criminal punishment more severe, but I just am not at all convinced that overcrowded prisons and overburdened judicial systems are in many cases the right answer to anything.

 

I don't disagree with you there but it does remain that Capital and Corporal punishment are not the solution. Now what is is a massive topic and possibly one of the biggest problems in the neo liberal age is that the main priority has been on what is most cost effective and hard on criminals rather than research on why people commit crimes and the best way to change this.

 

Great but is there really a deterrent effect? Is there any evidence that states with the death penalty have lower violent crime rate than those that don't?

"Clearly, the above-mentioned statistics have proven that tough sentences like capital punishment have not been deterrent to crimes (Robinson, 2005). Therefore, it will not reduce crime as well (Robinson, 2005). Capital Punishment is Not Applicable to Everyone I strongly believe that capital punishment is a bad public policy because it is not “universalizable” (Kant’s.. , n. d.). The aforementioned term means “objective” for Immanuel Kant (Kant’s.. , n. d. ).

For him, before anything is made into a law or a rule, it should apply to everyone in the same way (Kant’s.. , n. d. ). This is because if it is not applicable to everyone then it is totally unfair (Robinson, 2005). For instance, the mentally ill, poor, males and racial minorities are over represented among those executed (Robinson, 2005). Also, women convicted of murder are almost never executed (Robinson, 2005). Moreover, individuals who killed whites were four times more likely to be sentenced to death than convicted killers of non-whites (Robinson, 2005).

Conclusion Capital Punishment is a bad public police because it does not provide justice, in fact it will only lead to an action that will require obtaining justice. In addition to that it does not deter or minimize crimes which have already been proven by statistics and some ‘psychological’ evidences. Last but not least, it is a bad public policy, because it is not “universalizable” or it is not be applicable to everyone."

https://lawaspect.com/capital-punishment-does-not-deter-reduce-crimes/


https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-...y-states-compared-to-non-death-penalty-states
https://www.bing.com/images/search?...punishment+have+lower+crime+rates&FORM=HDRSC2

So, liberal sensibilities aside, there is absolutely no evidence in the US that the death penalty lowers the rate of any crime let alone murder. How about the rest of the world? Do you have any evidence that countries with no death penalty have higher murder rates? I know in Canada our murder rate is far lower per capita than the US.

I could see the death penalty for heinous crimes like mass shooting but most mass shooters are killed by the police anyway, right?

Think about it. Do you want to live in a country where you are taking your grandkids downtown to see a movie and they are lashing some criminal, maybe a victim of poverty or mental illness at a stake in the public square????

What Barbary!

 

So long as there is oil in the ME there will never be peace even if the US moves out completely. The backward tribes of the ME do not want to see the ME enter the 21st century. They want the ME to go back to the 15th century. And the Shia and Sunni have been fighting since the 15th century and will continue to do so long after the US leaves.

 

So, troops are off to Saudi Arabia. I thought Trump wanted to stay out of foreign entanglements?

 

The USA's presence there has not brought the region so much as one inch closer to peace. Therefore, get the hell out and save taxpayers billions of dollars.

If you or anyone else wants USA troops there, pay for their transportation and daily costs yourself.

 

If the attack on the Saudi oilfields was a "Pearl Harbor," where are all the young Saudis signing up to fight Iran? Shouldn't lines of young men at recruitment offices be on the Saudi news channels?

 

The elites who run that country are wealthy enough to recruit their own mercenary army. They do not need US troops or support of any kind. Only those who stand to profit from more war want to see further USA involvement there. This because there isn't a shred of patriotism in any of them - their only interest is in war profits.

 

That work is done by others.