Umm, yes, putting "Sharia Law" into a constitution is a big deal. And it does not bode well.

[LadyLeigh]

The only person who could think otherwise would be a heterosexual male.

As for the "it's their county" argument: Well, "they" asked for our help, didn't they? It is reasonable to demand that our "help" come with the caveat that our "help" does not reduce women to second class citizens. Furthermore, there has hardly been a referendum stating that all of "them" are in agreement with this.

[MrSlayer]

1. Every Muslim country bases their laws on Sharia.

It doesn't necessarily mean they are going to honor rapes and shit like that.

[LadyLeigh]

2. Who says its a muslim country? It wasn't up until now.

[JoePhilly]

7. Really?

And the US is, or is not, a Christian Nation?

And there is the rub ... most Americans claim to be Christians, and see this as a "Christian nation" ... which is silly ... but we should not be surprised if those of other nations see themselves as more closely tied to Islam or some other religion.

We can't BITCH about some demanding for SHARIA law in their country when the crazy right wing DEMANDS that they brand of Christianity control THIS COUNTRY.

[LadyLeigh]

12. The US that I live in is not a "Christian nation". Never has been.

[JoePhilly]

59. That's why I said it was silly. The point is that we should not be surprised ...

that political leaders in other countries would make similar claims about religious laws.

The right wing theocrats in our country would like to have our laws be "biblical" in nature ... and plenty of their political leaders call for it openly.

So it should not be surprising that the right wing theocrats in their countries say the same things about "Sharia" law.

[closeupready]

87. Texas Republicans are on record as stating you do indeed live in a "Christian nation".

Though they later changed their platform, but that was a plank in their platform not that long ago.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

24. Except their brand of Christianity DOESN'T control this country (not yet)

Which is why they generally hate the Constitution......our pesky laws have gotten in their way, despite their ramblings about the foundation of our laws.

[City Lights]

58. The US is NOT a Christian nation.

Really.

[Fool Count]

49. That is not true at all. Many Muslim countries do not base

their laws on Sharia - Turkey and Kazakhstan are only two examples. Qaddafi's Libya was another.

[Robb]

63. The Russians purged Kazakhstan of Islam in the 18th Century.

Had it not, law there would almost certainly have Sharia roots.

[Turborama]

96. Most majority Muslim countries in the world are secular

See here for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_majority_countries

And only 7 out of the 48 majority Muslim countries in the world are Islamic states which have adopted Islam as the ideological foundation for their political institution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world#Religion_and_state




~

[riderinthestorm]

102. Your lists aren't accurate. For example the UAE on your lists would imply that Sharia has no place

in their laws.

However, it plays a big part in their laws (http://www.dubai-information-site.com/sharia-law.html)

Then I selected Jordan at random since I know the King is progresive but even Jordan has Sharia courts. I didn't go any further than that, I was simply checking on the facts of your links and they are demonstrably false.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that religion should play no part in a countries laws or constitution. It's toxic and leads down a treacherous path of discrimination, inequality and injustice. Libya (Tunisia, Egypt etc. etc.) have the chance to get this right from the start. If we cannot emphasize this now, then when?

[kestrel91316]

3. They can watch their tourist dollars plummet to ZERO.

[Kennah]

8. Because tourism under the former dictator was booming?

[pnwmom]

21. Libya? Tourist dollars?

:rofl:

[mainer]

77. Yep. Libya has incredible tourist sites.

But you'd have to be informed to know that. It was called by the NYT one of the top destinations for travelers interested in archaeology.

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/183

[pnwmom]

80. The point is they've had very few tourist dollars from people who would care about sharia law.

So this is very unlikely to reduce their tourist dollars.

[mainer]

82. They had a growing tourist industry with plans for resorts

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/kharafi-plans-130mn-libya-resort-project-86022.html

Now, with infrastructure destroyed and prior investors scared, not sure when the tourism industry will recover.

Tourism in Libya
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tourism in Libya is an industry still in its infancy but one that is gradually growing. 149,000 tourists visited Libya in 2004, and this went up to 180,000 in 2007 (this contributed less than 1% of the country's GDP); there were 1,000,000 day visitors in the same year.<1><2> The country is best known for its ancient Greek and Roman ruins and Sahara desert landscapes. There are currently about 13,000 hotel rooms in Libya, a figure the government hopes to increase to 50,000.<3>
Libya can be visited as part of an organized tour, or on a transit visa, obtainable in either Cairo or Tunis.

[pnwmom]

92. I still don't see what sharia law will do to reduce their tourism dollars.

They've already not been getting much tourism from people who would care about Sharia law.

[mainer]

98. No, Sharia law won't stop tourists. But chaos will.

That's all I'm saying.

[Spider Jerusalem]

22. You mean like Dubai?

[trumad]

4. so if they dont listen to our demands

You going to stomp your feet and hold your breath?

[Fool Count]

50. Why stoop to that when we can always bomb them again

and install another government? Worked last time.

[pampango]

5. Agreed, but democracy trumps my preferred political outcome. A dictator may

force policies on a population that I agree with, but they are illegitimate if not chosen by the populace.

I think history shows that once democracy is established policies progress as people learn what is good for their country and their fellow citizens. The US used to condone slavery, women didn't have the vote, etc.

I'm sure if there had been some foreign progressive democracy back in the day, they might have looked at us and said that the US with its slavery and lack of women's suffrage, needed a good dictator to force progressive policies on the population. That didn't happen. We wised up gradually and fitfully, but we progressed.

I trust that the Middle East will progress in a similar manner over time once dictators are replaced by democracies and people make their own political decisions rather than having them imposed by force from above.

[Fumesucker]

10. Slavery was "chosen by the populace" in the South..

Indeed, the populace fought a war to maintain their right to be slaveholders.

[etherealtruth]

20. Apartheid was "chosen" in South Africa

Their country their choice :sarcasm:

[Spider Jerusalem]

26. By a minority of white colonists and their descendants.

Libya on the other hand is a country with a majority Muslim population. And "sharia" doesn't necessarily mean "like Iran" or "like Saudi Arabia" or "like Afghanistan". All Muslims are not the same, and Islam isn't monolithic.

[riderinthestorm]

28. Uhm, Sharia DOES mean things such as women inherit half as much as men, and glbt people

are not legally allowed to exist in the society just to start.

Libya has the chance to get things right at their new beginning. They can create a secular constitution that's free of patriarchy, religion, bigotry and discrimination. Stating up front however that Libya's new rule of law is going to be based on Sharia is akin to a new political government in the US stating that they are going to base their new constitution on Biblical law.

I don't think anyone whose a tad bit worried about this initial first statement on Libya's new direction is somehow being unreasonable.

[Spider Jerusalem]

32. Sure, they CAN, but it's ridiculously optimistic...

to expect a relatively conservative society not far removed from tribalism, with a strongly religious traditional culture, to create that kind of secular constitution based on the ideals of Western democratic liberalism. The ideals of the West are sadly not universal, and we in the West didn't get where we are today without long and bloody struggles either (see: King John and the barons' revolt that led to Magna Carta; the English Civil War, the Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, French Revolution, American Civil War, suffrage and civil rights movements, labour movements, the Chartists, the Haymarket riot in Chicago, and on and on and on).

[riderinthestorm]

37. So we should just shut up about it? It seems as though anyone expressing alarm

or even a counter opinion about Libya's transitional government making this alarming statement is being told to stfu.

Sorry but this is the digital age and perhaps some (most? a lot?) Libyans will get the message.

The entire premise of the United States of America was ridiculously optimistic.... There is historic precedent for new governments to do the right thing but standing silent while they veer off onto the wrong course seems even more ridiculous (to me).

[Spider Jerusalem]

40. Bad example

the US constitution was based on...Magna Carta, the English bill of Rights, 600 years of English common law, and a tradition of representative parliamentary government. In the case of the fledgling United States, they were building on an existing tradition (and even then it was a fairly limited sort of ideal government, what with voting being largely restricted to property owners, and the concessions for slavery). No such comparable tradition or framework exists in Libya.

[riderinthestorm]

42. But the US as a nation had a very short history. Libya can also base it's new constitution on...

... the Magna Carta, the English bill of Rights, 600 years of English common law, and a tradition of representative parliamentary government. In our new digital age, the Libyan people have the exact same resources we did (do).

NOTHING limits the Libyan government from laying down a constitution that's utterly transformational for a predominantly Muslim nation.

Only they can impose a religious framework on themselves. And it would be a damn shame if they did (and if we didn't warn them otherwise while we still can).

Why are you so hell bent that they should impose sharia law on themselves??? Why are you so resistant to the idea that they strive for a more secular constitution? Why are you so determined that the players who helped them achieve the overthrow of Gaddafi make absolutely NO suggestions based upon oh, say, history, experience or even human rights??

[Spider Jerusalem]

47. I haven't said they SHOULD impose sharia law; however I'm realistic enough to realise...

that they probably WILL.

You also seem to be missing the larger point I'm making about culture and history.

[Amonester]

53. You look at Libya from a Western point of view, and you refuse to face

the reality there.

The fact is, they cannot impose a religious framework on themselves, they (the big majority of them anyway) are religious people.

Viewed from a very different angle, it could be said that nobody could impose, for example, free daily rock concerts to rockers... it just doesn't make sense.

[riderinthestorm]

65. Gosh, you mean most Americans don't see themselves as religious people??

Especially back when the constitution was being created? You truly believe that?

[ieoeja]

84. "the big majority of them anyway"

That big majority can impose a religious framework on the minority. And that would be horribly wrong. Just as it would be horribly wrong to deny them the right to practice their religion amongst themselves.

There are large Amish communities in the United States that hold to practices that would be intolerable to most Americans. But we let them do it anyway. Because they are not forcing their religious tenants on anyone.

An entire state, Utah, works largely off Mormon practices. And we let them do it. Because they are not forcing their religious tenants on anyone.


Christian Dominionists want to base American law on the Old and New testaments. And we do *not* let them do that. Because they would be forcing their relgioius tenants on everyone. That is the American equivalent of this. And it is thankfully unconstitutional.

[Threedifferentones]

43. No one is far removed from tribalism.

The world wars were started by a Latin culture against a Germanic culture.

Consider that it is oil which drives American interests in the ME, our ideals are a convenient excuse.

The ideals of the west are superficial and quite new. It is western colonialism that really put the Middle East into all these horrible messes that now call themselves nations. England and France drew their borders, without caring, if they knew, that they were lumping longstanding enemies together. The social circumstances that resulted from suppressing these tensions for decades of the twentieth century are understandably angry and radical. Combined with crushing poverty they are also predictably desperate and ignorant in terms of philosophy and religion.

Consider that Turkey shares the same secular, democratic ideals as "western" nations. Islamic culture as a broad whole WAS plenty advanced in comparison to Christian culture, until most of it was crushed by a little thing known as the Ottomans losing WW1.

[Spider Jerusalem]

41. At the time of the Declaration of Independence...

most of the New England and mid-Atlantic colonies also had slavery.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/09/26/new_englands_hidden_history/

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/01/18/new_englands_scarlet_s_for_slavery/

[Fumesucker]

51. I knew that but was simplifying to make a point..

After all, it wasn't the New England and mid-Atlantic states that went to war to maintain slavery.

[ieoeja]

91. New England founded by people fleeing Empire. South founded by people expanding Empire.

The North

New Hampshire - named for old Hampshire
New Amsterdam/York - named for old Amsterdam/York
Massachussets - native
Connecticut - native
Delaware - native
Pennsylvania - named for a populist, anti-royalist politician!

The South

Queen Mary(land)
The Virgin(a) Queen Elizabeth
King Georg(ia)
North and South Carolina (named for a group of King Charles's)


The North

- Supported railroads to help the expansion of industry which was, at that time, creating upward mobility where none previously existed. Remember, before this your place in life was determined by what family you chose to be within.
- Free land (til it was all gone).
- Free public schools. Over 90% literacy rate pre-Civil War.
- Universal suffrage for white males.
- Favored letting new States vote on the issue of slavery.
- Believed Slavery was a States Right issue (yes; most people get this back asswards).

The South

- Opposed industrialization (which bit them on the ass big time during the Civil War).
- No public schools. Some states even made it illegal for local counties or municipalities to have schools. Literacy rate under 50%.
- Literacy tests and poll taxes. Yes, these existed even before African-Americans were allowed to vote. The purpose was to keep poor White folk from voting.
- Work should be done by inferior races. Southern aristocrats were largely descended from the Norman conquerors. They believed they were superior to all other races. And that other warrior cultures, like the Celts and even the American Indians, were superior to Africans and English. Some went so far as to suggest raiding the North to capture slaves and put them in chains since the North was much closer than Africa and largely of English or German ancestry and thus suitable for manual labor.
- Conquered and lost Baja California to expand empire and slavery.
- Invaded Cuba numerous times to expand empire and slavery.
- Conquered and lost Guatemala (twice) to expand empire and slavery.
- Opposed letting new States vote on slavery because (1) they knew they would lose and (2) see below.
- Believed Slavery was an Individual Right acknowledge by the Federal Constitution.

[LadyLeigh]

14. A democracy without women's suffrage isn't a democracy. Not from a female perspective.

What you are saying is that women should sit back and watch as their existing rights are taken away from them, and wait until the privileged males decide to "wisen up".

All your talk of "people making their own decisions" is worthless if you happen to be part of the segment of society who doesn't get to be involved in those decisions. That is the whole point.

Huh, "progressive policies are illegitimate if forced on the people"? What people exactly are you talking about? Remember, the end of slavery was "forced on the people" too.

[pampango]

19. I don't accept a lack of women's suffrage. You don't accept dictatorship (no suffrage).

Our shared goal is full suffrage along with full civil and political rights for all people (men and women, black, brown and white, etc.) in all countries. We are in agreement.

The question is whether that goal is best achieved through self-government or do we go back to the days of kings and dictators and hope the next king/dictator is a "good" one but without any input in the selection process.

[TheKentuckian]

17. How is it a democracy if the first step is to disenfranchise women and ethnic minorities?

I'm not saying it is going to play out like that but if it does you don't really have democracy and you have aided a group in taking away swaths of the population's natural rights in a false effort to free them.

[TBF]

23. Bingo. This "liberation" had nothing to do with people and everything to do with

freeing up oil.

[Spider Jerusalem]

27. That's just ignorant, I'm afraid.

In case you weren't aware, Western oil companies were already established in Libya before the revolt. BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Eni (Italian), Repsol (Spanish), Total (French), and others all had operations in Libya.

[TBF]

44. Only 25% of Libya has been explored for oil, and Gaddafi kept a tight rein over the industry -

you can bet any companies involved are thrilled to pieces about his demise. And there are certainly "neighbors" in the area that are also thrilled. Don't condescend to me.

[EFerrari]

52. The first thing these "rebels" did was form a central bank

and start cutting oil deals back when they were first recognized as the government of Libya.

[stevenleser]

67. Shockers. They addressed their country's financial needs and most important natural resource?

Wow, I really am shocked. How could a government do such a thing? Obviously this means there is something nefarious about them.

:sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

74. Except they had no democratic mandate to do either, did they?

That's all right. I'm going to enjoy watching these champions of democracy in the coming months. :sarcasm:

[stevenleser]

79. Do you even comprehend the slippery slope on which you just alighted?

One could easily use such a justification to do anything to non-Democratic countries starting with denying requests for extradition all the way to regime change.

[Angry Dragon]

6. How about just taking religion out of politics - worldwide

[Obamanaut]

9. "It's their country" is a valid argument. The US has no business being

the 'policemen of the world'.

There is plenty broken here to keep us busy for decades. No need to meddle elsewhere.

[leftstreet]

11. And if things get bad they can ask us for help. No Fly Zones, or troops, whatever

:sarcasm:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

34. I agree with half, but only half, of that.

"There is plenty broken here to keep us busy for decades."

This strikes me as at least mostly true, although the phrase "keep us busy" implies that you think that improving domestic governance and foreign intervention are mutually exclusive, which I don't believe is true - the limiting factor on each is overcoming the people who disagree with it, not time or effort.

"No need to meddle elsewhere."

To say this when people else where are starving, oppressed etc strikes me as deeply callous. You may feel that "meddling" elsewhere is likely to be done badly and should hence be avoided, but most of the world could certainly benefit from foreign "meddling" if the right things were done, and desperately needs all the help it can get.

[Obamanaut]

56. As the Patrick Swayze character in 'Roadhouse' said, "Opinions vary." nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

64. Yes, but didn't he then go and beat the crap out of everyone who disagreed with him? N.T.

[Obamanaut]

86. In response #9 I expressed my opinion, and you disagreed. Opinions vary. That's

not uncommon on internet boards/forums.

[stevenleser]

13. Religion enshrined or established in a Constitution is always undesireable

That said, in most Muslim countries, some reference to Sharia law exists in their Constitutions. I just got back from Zanzibar, a semi-autonomous region of Tanzania that has Sharia courts and makes people of both sexes cover up when not on the beach (women more than men of course). It was my first trip to a predominantly Muslim area and the idea that my attire, or those of the women traveling with me, were mandated by laws based on religious doctrine was very upsetting.

There are a wide variety of implementations of Sharia in Muslim countries. Some basically give it lip service in the Constitution and thats it. Others, well, you know the others.

No matter what WE want, people have a right to self determination and sometimes the form that takes will be upsetting in some ways. The current person in charge is a Sharia scholar and I only hope when elections happen that he is voted out and this can be amended.

[Initech]

15. Which is why I'm 150% against a new constitutional convention.

People like to think that it can't happen here, but you bet your ass it can. We're not totally immune from how the rest of the world works. What happened in Libya could easily happen here if a new constitutional convention were to happen. You think the majority of the people are going to change it progressively? Hell no! The religious fundamentalists will get a hold of it and change it to create a theocracy. Which is exactly what happened in Libya. And now that country will be ruled by the religious psychos of the world. It happened in Libya. I don't want it to happen here or anywhere else in the world.

[PurityOfEssence]

90. So true: we'd never get as good a deal.

The founders, for all their faults, got this one resoundingly correct.

[Initech]

105. It's not perfect but it's the best we're gonna do.

We can't let the fundies get their mits on it and change it - over my dead body will I allow that to happen. We need to pass amendments holding Wall St and their ilk accountable - starting with overturning Citizens United. :grr:

[War Horse]

16. No, it doesn't bode well

But I'd say that those Ghadaffi supporters who were found with their hands tied behind their backs and shot at close range is more disturbing. As is the rotting corpse on display in that meat locker.

As far as Sharia - we'll just have to wait and see. Too early to freak out over that. Sharia means different things to different people, and has different contexts.

Not that I'm overly optimistic, but it's still way too early to tell.

[msongs]

18. it's what exclusionary religions founded by and for men do nt

[DCBob]

25. So we send in ground troups to force a western based democracy on them??

sounds like Bushism.

[riderinthestorm]

29. Yeah, we're really "forcing" them with our ground troops in Libya....

(snort!) nice strawman.

Libya has the chance to create a secular constitution with no patriarchy, religious bigotry, or discrimination codified into their founding document. Stating that they are going to incorporate Sharia into their constitution is akin to saying that biblical law is going to be incorporated into our constitution. Sure, not all biblical law is bad right? But why put ANY into what should be a secular document unless you are explicitly sending a message to the world that Libya is now a theological state.

[DCBob]

36. Im asking what the OP would recommend...

to stop them from incorporating Sharia law into their constituion. That sounds like nation building. It never works imo... especially in that part of the world.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

35. Yes, it does, but it's worth noting that that's your comment, not the OP's.

Sending in ground troops to Westernise Libya by force would clearly be a bad idea, but not actually being suggested, so pointing this out doesn't advance the discussion much.

Using economic and political pressure to promote womens' rights, gay rights, religious freedom, etc, is much less clear-cut. I strongly support those things, but it's possible most of the people of Libya don't; to what extent we should support the right of the majority to democratically repress minorities is debatable, as is what the US should do about it if not.

[DCBob]

39. So what is the OP point??.. any idiot knows the potential negative impact of Sharia law.

What can we do about it? Its their country. Attempting to influence them already with economic and political pressure before anything has even been settled seems way too premature and would be seen as just more US meddling by most in the ME.

[TBF]

45. The point is to show that this was never about liberating the Libyan people. nt

[riderinthestorm]

46. Exactly. Western powers demanding basic human rights codified into a constitution

would mean alienating their new oil partners, the Islamist East Libya.

Sad and frustrating.

[DCBob]

48. Are the Libyan people not now liberated from the Gaddafi regime??

Sure looks like they are to me.

[TBF]

57. It depends upon how you define "liberation" - enacting Sharia law would not define it for me.

YMMV and I'm sure does as you are simply parroting the administration talking points. Enjoy your oil.

[stevenleser]

66. Let's turn this around. So you would not be in favor of Palestinian self determination if they state

that they want Sharia law as part of their constitution?

[TBF]

72. That is not turning something around - it is pulling something shiny out as a distraction.

I don't favor Sharia law anywhere, but that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the fact that this administration is selectively intervening in countries where our corporations have an interest in natural resources and disguising it as some sort of freedom parade. Israel is not on that list so your example is irrelevant.

[stevenleser]

73. Tells me all I need to know about your position here. It's selective outrage. nt

[TBF]

75. Get back to me when Israel lets the prisoners out of their cages. nt

[SidDithers]

97. +1...nt

Sid

[DCBob]

94. Whatever they do with Sharia law has nothing to do with being liberated from the Gaddafi regime.

Regardless the Gaddafi era is over in Libya and that was the main goal.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

60. I would say that it's probably far easier to influence things before they're set in stone.

I agree that it will be seen as more US meddling in the ME, and that that is a drawback, but I think that that is probably a less important concern than ensuring that e.g. women get the vote, homosexuality is not criminalised, religious freedom is not to extremely curtailed etc.

[DCBob]

93. Yes, I can agree with that but its a fine line between influencing and meddling.

I suspect the US and other western powers are waiting to see if the new "government" can sort this out themselves first.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

95. I don't think it's a line between - I think all influence *is* meddling.

The question is not "is this meddling" but "is it right to meddle"; I think that the risks to minority rights (among other reasons) in Libya are sufficiently high that the answer is "yes", at least to some extent.

[Fumesucker]

68. The point is this is a discussion forum, one where we discuss current events among other things..

And the likely inclusion of Sharia law in the Libyan constitution is a legitimate subject for discussion as a current event.

[Xithras]

30. A nation cannot be a free democracy if its government is based on religion.

Once that basis is established, the will of the people is naturally limited by the religious bounds in which the government operates. Even worse, minorities who do not believe in that religiion will find themselves operating under a system they do not agree with, and without the legal ability to change it.

Religiously based governments are the antithesis of "free". When any objection to a law can be shot down with "Because God Says So", you have lost the ability to determine your own fate...which is what democracy is really all about.

[rustydog]

31. It is their country we have enough problems with GOP putting Christ

and unforgiving christian beliefs in OUR constitution. Bark up that tree!

[riderinthestorm]

33. Precisely why it's so damn important Libya stays away from incorporating religion into the founding

documents. It's long term toxic and extremely detrimental in producing a civil society. The US has had enough problems with the (scant) religious references in our own founding documents so we already know enough to warn others.

Libya has a chance to do this right and keep it secular. If voices don't speak up now, then when?

[spanone]

61. a m e n

[apocalypsehow]

38. "But that's different," or some convoluted form of it, all the way down the thread

I reckon, sight unseen.



On edit: did I call it or wut?

[Fumesucker]

69. Shooting fish in a barrel..

That was an easy-peasy prediction..

:hi:

[pinboy3niner]

54. The people who have a knee-jerk reaction against this...

• Anti-Muslim bigots, who will use anything to fearmonger

• Anti-inerventionists who continue to fight battles already lost by demonizing the NTC

• Those who genuinely are concerned for the future of the people of Libya (though these people generally adopt a 'wait-and-see' attitude and don't jump to knee-jerk conclusions)


Which category is yours? I already know, but it might be illuminating for others to be able to put your OP in perspective.

[pinboy3niner]

55. OOPS! I forgot a category: Gaddafi propagandists

My bad! :spank:

[Fumesucker]

70. I have another category for you..

People who think religion influences too much in our own country where freedom of religion is written into the constitution.

Some of us see religion as more of an influence for evil than good, it's disturbing to us to see a nation base its entire legal system on interpretations of a book written a millenium and a half ago.

[Prometheus Bound]

83. One more category: Those who think the Libyan people should decide, not self-appointed leaders.

[LadyLeigh]

85. Anti-interventionist. And true, the damge is done.

All that is left is to continue to point out all of the reasons for my opinion on the subject, and to try to counter some of the white washing.

[JVS]

62. Evidently our leaders are incapable of thinking before bombing.

[renegade000]

71. so we're throwing Julian Assange under the bus right?

Or is he already under the bus? I can't keep track of these things...

[MH1]

81. dang, context would be a beautiful thing right about now

is this thread about Libya or Tunisia or Assange, or Saturn? What model of bus was that anyway?

[Zorra]

76. Truth. "The only person who could think otherwise would be a heterosexual male.

Come on, guys. Try to envision and empathically feel what it would be like for you if you had to put up with the same massive social horror that a woman has to put up with under Sharia Law.

Think you could ever learn to accept being forced by the law to obey your spouse like a dog?

Or think about what it would be like to be imprisoned or executed for being LGBT.

Seriously. Unless you are like a total right wing jerk, you have to admit that this is a cruel and inhumane system to live under.

[Zorra]

78. Wow. DU has sunk to an all time low, judging by the # of unrecs on this thread. nt

[closeupready]

88. If Libya had no oil, nobody would care. Look at how much we here discuss Sharia in Niger.

:eyes:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

99. Niger *has* oil.

For my money, the difference is that Libya is in the ME, which appears to be an area people in America care about, especially since 9/11, while Niger is in Africa, which no-one cares about.

[closeupready]

101. Libya is not Middle East; it's either Near East or even better, North Africa.

:hi: ;)

[L0oniX]

89. Repukes wish Sharia Law was in our consitution.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

100. No, they don't.

Even the most right-wing elected Republicans are far more liberal than e.g. Saudi Arabia or the Taliban.

[L0oniX]

103. The religious right does.

[Initech]

104. They want biblical law, not sharia law.