13 yr old Stoned

[KinjaKahn]

Amnesty International Denounces Stoning Death of 13-Year-Old Somali Girl

Sunday, November 02, 2008
http://www.foxnews.com/images/service_ap_36.gifMOGADISHU, Somalia — A 13-year-old girl who said she had been raped was stoned to death in Somalia after being accused of adultery by Islamic militants, a human rights group said.
Dozens of men stoned Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow to death Oct. 27 in a stadium packed with 1,000 spectators in the southern port city of Kismayo, Amnesty International and Somali media reported, citing witnesses. The Islamic militia in charge of Kismayo had accused her of adultery after she reported that three men had raped her, the rights group said.
Initial local media reports said Duhulow was 23, but her father told Amnesty International she was 13. Some of the Somali journalists who first reported the killing later told Amnesty International that they had reported she was 23 based upon her physical appearance.
Calls to Somali government officials and the local administration in Kismayo rang unanswered Saturday.
"This child suffered a horrendous death at the behest of the armed opposition groups who currently control Kismayo," David Copeman, Amnesty International's Somalia campaigner, said in a statement Friday.
Somalia is among the world's most violent and impoverished countries. The nation of some 8 million people has not had a functioning government since warlords overthrew a dictator in 1991 then turned on each other.

A quarter of Somali children die before age 5; nearly every public institution has collapsed. Fighting is a daily occurrence, with violent deaths reported nearly every day.
Islamic militants with ties to Al Qaeda have been battling the government and its Ethiopian allies since their combined forces pushed the Islamists from the capital in December 2006. Within weeks of being driven out, the Islamists launched an insurgency that has killed thousands of civilians.
In recent months, the militants appear to be gaining strength. The group has taken over the port of Kismayo, Somalia's third-largest city, and dismantled pro-government roadblocks. They also effectively closed the Mogadishu airport by threatening to attack any plane using it.
-------------------


Religion of Peace!

[Hotpapa666]

Yeah! Religion!

[Mike]

Strict interpretationalists of holy works (and things like government constitutions, I suppose) can lead to extreme if not condemnable beliefs and actions, not to mention bad policies.

[KinjaKahn]

Strict interpretationalists of holy works (and things like government constitutions, I suppose) can lead to extreme if not condemnable beliefs and actions, not to mention bad policies.

Wow... Honor killings going on everywhere there are Muslims... and you liken it to US Supreme Court Justices...

[LSU]

Wow... Honor killings going on everywhere there are Muslims... and you liken it to US Supreme Court Justices...


Oh, you mean like likening those that won't overturn Roe v Wade to child murderers.

The nerve of such rhetoric!

[Mike]

Wow... Honor killings going on everywhere there are Muslims... and you liken it to US Supreme Court Justices...

Not at all.

Just that writings outdated by the passage of time and advancements don't always yield the best result if strictly applied to modern situations never envisioned at the time the writings were created.


Ritual and custom killings have been performed under the auspices of the Bible and Christianity, too. History is full of examples, as I'm sure you are aware.

The lessons of blind strict interpretation with respect to the U.S. Constitution (and legislation) (interpreted by far more Judicial personages than Supreme Court Justices) are of course not of the same nature and character as the atrocities perpetuated in the name of religious dogma and fundamentalism. But that doesn't mean the lessons should be ignored.

[KinjaKahn]

Not at all.

Just that writings outdated by the passage of time and advancements don't always yield the best result if strictly applied to modern situations never envisioned at the time the writings were created.
Perhaps Magic 8 ball is your solution?
Ritual and custom killings have been performed under the auspices of the Bible and Christianity, too. History is full of examples, as I'm sure you are aware.
History vs. last week... Nice justification.
The lessons of blind strict interpretation with respect to the U.S. Constitution (and legislation) (interpreted by far more Judicial personages than Supreme Court Justices) are of course not of the same nature and character as the atrocities perpetuated in the name of religious dogma and fundamentalism. But that doesn't mean the lessons should be ignored.
Like Roe vs. Wade... we should just legislate from the bench? Make new rights on the fly? Grant civil rights to behavior?

[KinjaKahn]

Oh, you mean like likening those that won't overturn Roe v Wade to child murderers.

The nerve of such rhetoric!
LOL reality sucks and you're in denial.

[LSU]

LOL reality sucks and you're in denial.


Hopefully now that you've realized that, you can address the issue and move forward.

[KinjaKahn]

Hopefully now that you've realized that, you can address the issue and move forward.
There is no moving anywhere. You support child murder. I do not. I wont look for a reason to condone it. Meanwhile you've found reasons to condone it. Greed, Irresponsibility, and immorality.

[LSU]

There is no moving anywhere. You support child murder. I do not. I wont look for a reason to condone it. Meanwhile you've found reasons to condone it. Greed, Irresponsibility, and immorality.


Yep. I'm greedy. And irresponsible. And immoral.

You got it.


Oh no, wait.

As per usual, you don't got it. Quite aways from gotting it, in fact.

But that never stopped you, so continue the ignorance!

[KinjaKahn]

Yep. I'm greedy. And irresponsible. And immoral.

You got it.


Oh no, wait.

As per usual, you don't got it. Quite aways from gotting it, in fact.

But that never stopped you, so continue the ignorance!
For what reason do you tolerate it?

[LSU]

For what reason do you tolerate it?


Greed, irresponsibility, and immorality.

You already covered that.

[KinjaKahn]

Greed, irresponsibility, and immorality.

You already covered that.
Then why whine?

[LSU]

Then why whine?


Just following suit.

[KinjaKahn]

Just following suit.You're following your tail.

[Mike]

Perhaps Magic 8 ball is your solution?

History vs. last week... Nice justification.

Like Roe vs. Wade... we should just legislate from the bench? Make new rights on the fly? Grant civil rights to behavior?


Strict interpretation should not be blindly adhered to, regardless of context, intent and practical application, whether last week or thousands of years ago, or tomorrow.

And no, again. The process of rational application of legal principles, acknowledging legislative intent and drafting histories, and taking into account the factual situation and circumstances presented upon which reasoning is to be conducted -- is not the same thing as legislating from the bench or making new rights on the fly, or granting civil rights to behavior. Context matters.

Believe it or not, not every situation or circumstance imaginable, including technological and other advancements, can be detailed and addressed specifically by constitutions and legislation. Interpretation is an absolute necessity. Necessary interpretation does not necessarly equal full blown willy nilly legislation from the bench. That's not to say there aren't an abundance of examples of judges going too far ... But...

If you agree with the judicial interpretation and the reasoning applied, then you call it appropriate application of the rule of law.

If you don't agree with the judicial interpretion and the reasoning applied, then you call it legislating from the bench and creating things out of thin air. And, of course, you appeal. And if you cannot gain access to the Supreme Court or they uphold the lower decision(s), then you contribute to and/or join special interest groups.

I suppose you'd give up all the protections provided by the judicially fashioned "right to (or of) privacy?" And perhaps you'd prefer to leave such things to specific legislation that may or may not ever get around to specifically addressing situations the Constitution was not strictly specific about?

[LSU]

You're following your tail.


If you're equating yourself to my ass, I'll not argue.

[KinjaKahn]

Strict interpretation should not be blindly adhered to, regardless of context, intent and practical application, whether last week or thousands of years ago, or tomorrow.

And no, again. The process of rational application of legal principles, acknowledging legislative intent and drafting histories, and taking into account the factual situation and circumstances presented upon which reasoning is to be conducted -- is not the same thing as legislating from the bench or making new rights on the fly, or granting civil rights to behavior. Context matters.

Believe it or not, not every situation or circumstance imaginable, including technological and other advancements, can be detailed and addressed specifically by constitutions and legislation. Interpretation is an absolute necessity. Necessary interpretation does not necessarly equal full blown willy nilly legislation from the bench. That's not to say there aren't an abundance of examples of judges going too far ... But...

If you agree with the judicial interpretation and the reasoning applied, then you call it appropriate application of the rule of law.

If you don't agree with the judicial interpretion and the reasoning applied, then you call it legislating from the bench and creating things out of thin air. And, of course, you appeal. And if you cannot gain access to the Supreme Court or they uphold the lower decision(s), then you contribute to and/or join special interest groups.

I suppose you'd give up all the protections provided by the judicially fashioned "right to (or of) privacy?" And perhaps you'd prefer to leave such things to specific legislation that may or may not ever get around to specifically addressing situations the Constitution was not strictly specific about?

Lets hear the detailed work around you have in mind.

[KinjaKahn]

If you're equating yourself to my ass, I'll not argue.
http://www.dogtrainingsmartline.com/Animated%20Gifs/Large%20Gifs/big_headed_tiny_dog_chasing_tail_lg_clr.gif
Does the picture help you?

[LSU]

http://www.dogtrainingsmartline.com/Animated%20Gifs/Large%20Gifs/big_headed_tiny_dog_chasing_tail_lg_clr.gif
Does the picture help you?


No, like I said, I'm following suit. I ignore reality, and just apply what I want to think is happening, and then engage based on that.

[KinjaKahn]

No, like I said, I'm following suit. I ignore reality, and just apply what I want to think is happening, and then engage based on that.

ROFL anytime you think you might be cornered... you go *Poof* and start babbling. You are simply ashamed of the reality that you support killing the human being in the beginning of its life cycle and make jokes to bring back your "happy thoughts".

[LSU]

ROFL anytime you think you might be cornered... you go *Poof* and start babbling. You are simply ashamed of the reality that you support killing the human being in the beginning of its life cycle and make jokes to bring back your "happy thoughts".



No, it's more of me not wanting to waste the effort of well thought out sentences when I know the conversation is meaningless.

It has nothing to do with "being" cornered, but if you like to think that everyone is afraid of the big bad Kinja, then have at it. It's not.

But like I said, ignoring reality and substituting what one wants to think in place of it.

That is something you HAVE cornered the market on. Kudos.

[Mike]

Lets hear the detailed work around you have in mind.


I am uncertain just how to interpret what it is that you are asking for us to hear.

[KinjaKahn]

No, it's more of me not wanting to waste the effort of well thought out sentences when I know the conversation is meaningless.

It has nothing to do with "being" cornered, but if you like to think that everyone is afraid of the big bad Kinja, then have at it. It's not.

But like I said, ignoring reality and substituting what one wants to think in place of it.

That is something you HAVE cornered the market on. Kudos.

awwwwwwww I'm flattered...

It has everything to do with being cornered. You simply like believing that prior to becoming a viable fetus... its all magic.

[LSU]

awwwwwwww I'm flattered...

It has everything to do with being cornered. You simply like believing that prior to becoming a viable fetus... its all magic.


Well...

no.

But keep on keepin' on.

[KinjaKahn]

I am uncertain just how to interpret what it is that you are asking for us to hear.
You didn't happen to post that work around in another thread did you?

[Mike]

You didn't happen to post that work around in another thread did you?


Again, I'm not following what you are asking.

If I do understand what you are asking -- no, I just typed that out, as poorly written and organized as it was.

[KinjaKahn]

Well...

no.

But keep on keepin' on.


http://www.dogtrainingsmartline.com/Animated%20Gifs/Large%20Gifs/big_headed_tiny_dog_chasing_tail_lg_clr.gif
Round and round!!

[LSU]

http://www.dogtrainingsmartline.com/Animated%20Gifs/Large%20Gifs/big_headed_tiny_dog_chasing_tail_lg_clr.gif
Round and round!!


What comes around goes around.

Big fan of Ratt, are ya?


Love'll find a way, just give it time.

[KinjaKahn]

Again, I'm not following what you are asking.

If I do understand what you are asking -- no, I just typed that out, as poorly written and organized as it was.

You have a case... you have a constitution and precedents... you seem to not agree with the methods the SCOTUS use in determining how they can mesh... as its "blindly" "strictly" interpretation like Islam, and then you seem to kind of not agree with legislating from the bench...

Lets hear your work around.

[KinjaKahn]

What comes around goes around.

Big fan of Ratt, are ya?


Love'll find a way, just give it time.

LOL
Round and round
What comes around goes around
I'll tell you why, why, why, why....
cause your in denial that people start somewhere and you like killing them at the start.

[LSU]

LOL
Round and round
What comes around goes around
I'll tell you why, why, why, why....
cause your in denial that people start somewhere and you like killing them at the start.



Again, no.

But keep on denying an honest answer from me, and inserting your own reality.

The basic reason I never take the time to address your posts to me seriously.

Because that's always where it ends up.

Deny that if you choose to, as well.

Make it in your mind how you want it, then attack from that angle, completely ignoring that it's simply wrong.

[KinjaKahn]

Again, no.

But keep on denying an honest answer from me, and inserting your own reality.

The basic reason I never take the time to address your posts to me seriously.

Because that's always where it ends up.

Deny that if you choose to, as well.

Make it in your mind how you want it, then attack from that angle, completely ignoring that it's simply wrong.

LOL State your moral position then or just admit your morality is simply a variable. Last I heard from you that I took to be serious, was dependent on the viability of the fetus, totally disregarding the zygote, embryo, and unviable fetus as expendable.

[Mike]

You have a case... you have a constitution and precedents... you seem to not agree with the methods the SCOTUS use in determining how they can mesh... as its "blindly" "strictly" interpretation like Islam, and then you seem to kind of not agree with legislating from the bench...

Lets hear your work around.


The Supreme Court and its various methods of approaching judicial duty is not defined by a singular policy or ideology or philosophy upon which I could agree or disagree. Justices bring their own personal beliefs and views on judicial restraint (or not) to the bench with them.

Prededents are based upon Constitutional interpretations by the Court.

Strict interpretation is often the obvious and preferred approach -- just not as a blind Draconian exercise.

I happen to feel the same way about Biblical and other religious writings. I disagree with fundamentalists and strict interpretationalists who end the "judgment" process with the singular and shallow analysis of merely reading the written word and applying it strictly regardless of context, intent, situation and circumstance.

There is no particular "case" I have in mind. I'm sure I could find many examples of cases that reason and provide for Constitutional "rights" derived from the Constitution despite not being specifically set forth or enumerated there. As there are examples of what seem to be rather absurd decisions based only upon strict interpretation regardless of any other considerations or factors.

If you are looking for specific examples and citations to the examples (of both types of decisions), that will have to come another time, unless I'm put on the clock and I can bill out the time now.

[LSU]

LOL State your moral position then or just admit your morality is simply a variable. Last I heard from you that I took to be serious, was dependent on the viability of the fetus, totally disregarding the zygote, embryo, and unviable fetus as expendable.


I don't owe your comments jack.

Your opinion isn't a measuring stick for my morality.

I've tried discussing with you, and it's always a complete waste of time because you pick and choose what you want to see and then ignore the rest.

I'm not wasting my time on it. You can bait and pester all you want, but I've got no desire to waste my time responding seriously to anything you request.

Tried many times, always ends the same way. It's fruitless.

[KinjaKahn]

The Supreme Court and its various methods of approaching judicial duty is not defined by a singular policy or ideology or philosophy upon which I could agree or disagree. Justices bring their own personal beliefs and views on judicial restraint (or not) to the bench with them.

Prededents are based upon Constitutional interpretations by the Court.

Strict interpretation is often the obvious and preferred approach -- just not as a blind Draconian exercise.

I happen to feel the same way about Biblical and other religious writings. I disagree with fundamentalists and strict interpretationalists who end the "judgment" process with the singular and shallow analysis of merely reading the written word and applying it strictly regardless of context, intent, situation and circumstance.

There is no particular "case" I have in mind. I'm sure I could find many examples of cases that reason and provide for Constitutional "rights" derived from the Constitution despite not being specifically set forth or enumerated there. As there are examples of what seem to be rather absurd decisions based only upon strict interpretation regardless of any other considerations or factors.

If you are looking for specific examples and citations to the examples (of both types of decisions), that will have to come another time, unless I'm put on the clock and I can bill out the time now.
Dude. You just wasted time. I asked you for your work around to the situation that you just restated.

[KinjaKahn]

I don't owe your comments jack.

Your opinion isn't a measuring stick for my morality.

I've tried discussing with you, and it's always a complete waste of time because you pick and choose what you want to see and then ignore the rest.

I'm not wasting my time on it. You can bait and pester all you want, but I've got no desire to waste my time responding seriously to anything you request.

Tried many times, always ends the same way. It's fruitless.

Fear the corner.

[Mike]

Dude. You just wasted time. I asked you for your work around to the situation that you just restated.

Dude, define "your work around."

[LSU]

Fear the corner.


The corner has more to fear than the thoughts you provide.

[LSU]

Dude, define "your work around."


Sounds like a work around to me.

[KinjaKahn]

Dude, define "your work around."

You do not like the method of settling cases in the SCOTUS right? We have a method of amending the constitution... it's rarely used, as it takes forever as it requires ratification from like 36 states... The SCOTUS tries to mesh today with the Ideals of yesterday.

How else do you propose they do it?

[KinjaKahn]

The corner has more to fear than the thoughts you provide.

Stop fooling yourself sir, you do not possess the morals that you cower from standing up for.

[Mike]

You do not like the method of settling cases in the SCOTUS right? We have a method of amending the constitution... it's rarely used, as it takes forever as it requires ratification from like 36 states... The SCOTUS tries to mesh today with the Ideals of yesterday.

How else do you propose they do it?


When did I say I didn't like "the method of settling cases" in the US Supreme Court?

I'm all for the process of our justice system as set up by the Consititution and the US Code. The PROCESS is established and the best I'm aware of in the world. There are inherent unfairnesses built in due to financial imbalance among adversaries in the system, and we need to keep minimizing the impact of those.

As far as judicial approaches to deciding cases, there is more than one "method" applied. I've stated only my disagreement with one of those methods -- blind strict interpretation. I support the approach of Justices who take a broader view of their role, and truly do attempt to "mesh" or meld the written words of yesterday to the ideals envisioned for today.

And to bring it somewhat back to the OP -- I also disagree with strictly interpreting certain biblical and other religious writings. Rather -- it's better to apply and interpret more consistent with modern realities.

[LSU]

Stop fooling yourself sir, you do not possess the morals that you cower from standing up for.


Stop fooling yourself that through some random internet chatter you can identify and understand the morals of the person you're chatting with.

[KinjaKahn]

Stop fooling yourself that through some random internet chatter you can identify and understand the morals of the person you're chatting with.

Your opinion isn't a measuring stick for my morality.

You fail to state your morality. You just sit and spin round and round, terrified that stating your morality will leave you pounded and defenseless in a corner. :D

[LSU]

You fail to state your morality. You just sit and spin round and round, terrified that stating your morality will leave you pounded and defenseless in a corner. :D


No, I just have no reason to state my morality. No need to state it, justify it, or defend it, especially to the likes of you.

The only Entity that needs to know it already does. You can pretend you're Him as much as you want, or that you know Him better.

I'd imagine that the amount of effort you put into spouting off the superiority of your morality against the lack of morality of others is really just some pent up inferiority complex or subconscious view of a personal lack of morality, thus having to justify it against that of others.

But I'm no psychologist, but really what does that matter on the internet? We can just make all the judgments we want without merit and be ignorantly blissful all the while.

Good times, good times.

[KinjaKahn]

When did I say I didn't like "the method of settling cases" in the US Supreme Court?
It's just sometimes you don't like it? Perhaps only when you disagree with the decision?

I'm all for the process of our justice system as set up by the Consititution and the US Code. The PROCESS is established and the best I'm aware of in the world. There are inherent unfairnesses built in due to financial imbalance among adversaries in the system, and we need to keep minimizing the impact of those.
I would agree that the opportunity for justice is purchased by those able to.
As far as judicial approaches to deciding cases, there is more than one "method" applied. I've stated only my disagreement with one of those methods -- blind strict interpretation. I support the approach of Justices who take a broader view of their role, and truly do attempt to "mesh" or meld the written words of yesterday to the ideals envisioned for today.
The Judges role is limited to using the constitution. This is why they strike down laws.

And to bring it somewhat back to the OP -- I also disagree with strictly interpreting certain biblical and other religious writings. Rather -- it's better to apply and interpret more consistent with modern realities.
The big difference is the translation and evolution in languages. Such is the case in religious texts that are thousands of years old and not so much the case in the Constitution.

[KinjaKahn]

No, I just have no reason to state my morality. No need to state it, justify it, or defend it, especially to the likes of you.

The only Entity that needs to know it already does. You can pretend you're Him as much as you want, or that you know Him better.

I'd imagine that the amount of effort you put into spouting off the superiority of your morality against the lack of morality of others is really just some pent up inferiority complex or subconscious view of a personal lack of morality, thus having to justify it against that of others.

But I'm no psychologist, but really what does that matter on the internet? We can just make all the judgments we want without merit and be ignorantly blissful all the while.

Good times, good times.
Again... you do not possess the morals that you cower from standing up for.

[LSU]

Again... you do not possess the morals that you cower from standing up for.



I do not possess the understanding to know what you're talking about.

[KinjaKahn]

I do not possess the understanding to know what you're talking about.

Encore… vous ne possédez pas les morales que vous vous recroquevillez de se lever pour.

[LSU]

Encore… vous ne possédez pas les morales que vous vous recroquevillez de se lever pour.


I took frog in 11th grade, but only got a C. I haven't brushed up since then.

[KinjaKahn]

I took frog in 11th grade, but only got a C. I haven't brushed up since then.
Kanst du verstehen Deutsch?

[LSU]

Kanst du verstehen Deutsch?


Nope. The undergrad university I went to was the only one I found in state that didn't have a foreign language requirement.

I've since supplemented with learning how to speak "molecular biology" and I'm pretty decent at reading DNA.

[KinjaKahn]

Nope. The undergrad university I went to was the only one I found in state that didn't have a foreign language requirement.

I've since supplemented with learning how to speak "molecular biology" and I'm pretty decent at reading DNA.

Ahhh sehr gut... Mein Deutsch ist nicht sehr gut.

[LSU]

Ahhh sehr gut... Mein Deutsch ist nicht sehr gut.

Seig heil.

[Mike]

It's just sometimes you don't like it? Perhaps only when you disagree with the decision?


I would agree that the opportunity for justice is purchased by those able to.

The Judges role is limited to using the constitution. This is why they strike down laws.


The big difference is the translation and evolution in languages. Such is the case in religious texts that are thousands of years old and not so much the case in the Constitution.


I disagree with certain approaches to judging, period. That's true whether I agree with the result or not. I also disagree with certain results, regardless of the judicial reasoning. And of course I agree with certain results even if I disagree with the reasoning.

You are wrong to suggest that Justices are limited in their judicial role "to using the constitution." And, they strike down laws for many reasons. Justiciability for the Supreme Court most often, almost exclusively, involves Constitutional issues. That doesn't mean the Constitution is the only basis upon which rulings and decisions are made. And, they don't only strike down laws.


There are translation and language evolution issues, sure. There are also issues involving taking the written language strictly, even to extremes, to justify positions beyond what circumstances warrant. Extremists will lean on outdated written passages to justify almost anything if it serves their purposes, and in some cases if it serves their sincere if misguided beliefs.

[KinjaKahn]

I disagree with certain approaches to judging, period. That's true whether I agree with the result or not. I also disagree with certain results, regardless of the judicial reasoning. And of course I agree with certain results even if I disagree with the reasoning.
So sometimes you like the result but disagree with how they got there and sometimes you like the way they got to the wrong decision?
You are wrong to suggest that Justices are limited in their judicial role "to using the constitution." And, they strike down laws for many reasons. Justiciability for the Supreme Court most often, almost exclusively, involves Constitutional issues. That doesn't mean the Constitution is the only basis upon which rulings and decisions are made. And, they don't only strike down laws.
When they go outside the constitution it is legislating from the bench.
There are translation and language evolution issues, sure. There are also issues involving taking the written language strictly, even to extremes, to justify positions beyond what circumstances warrant. Extremists will lean on outdated written passages to justify almost anything if it serves their purposes, and in some cases if it serves their sincere if misguided beliefs.
In the case of Islam, the reason those countries are so screwed up is that the language is fairly consistent. Islam doesn't allow translation to trump Arabic. Arabic is the language of Islam. Farsi for example has no leg to stand on when looking to the Qu'ran. There are no outdated parts of the Qu'ran to muslims, to even suggest such is almost unthinkable to them, and surely something they can lose their life for. In the Hadiths they may find slight disagreement depending on who wrote it and where in the world they are but there will never be change in the Qu'ran. When the governments of the muslim countries cannot conform to the religion the fighting starts. Do not confuse the governments of Muslim nations with the muslim people. Virtually all of those governments were put in place by the West after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, thankfully the Ottoman Empire got rid of the Caliph. Saudi Arabia is a good example. The Royal family is enormous, it's a snake with so many heads the people cannot cut them all off to kill it. the Royal family has upset the faithful, the inabilty to kill the snake has caused the faithful to spill the fight beyond the borders. The faithful have taken the fight to those supporting the snake. When one of the faithful dies someone takes his place. If those governments fall, they will look a lot like Somalia, and if Saudi Arabia royal family goes down the oil tap will dry up. If Pakistan's Government falls all bets are off the world becomes a very dangerous place. Iran is a different story all together they are the only Shia controlled government and as largest minority sect of the Islamic world they are the black sheep of the family. Not as bad as infidels but not true Islam. Iran is an 8th century mentality with 20th century technology. Iran had a democracy, until the West helped kill Mosedech and installed the Shah. Iran was very advanced when the nuts took over. Same with Iraq. Supporting these monarchs and dictators is the only way to keep them in check. This is what trying to push democracy into the middle east is all about. The muslims are a primitive religion. The may come to live in the west but they bring their faith with them and they do not assimilate. The bad thing about letting them stay here is that they don't take their education back and share it. Many do go back, but not enough. Do not confuse Arabs with Muslims, there are millions of Arab Christians. The vast majority of Muslims are not sophisticated and not educated and are a huge reserve of holy warriors. It is a long slow process to bring them into the 21st century, and it has been a perfect example of divide and conquer. Supporting the creation of modern Israel has been counter productive.

There is no vote in the muslims faith there will be no change. Comparing the "extremists" to the SCOTUS is pure nonsense.