Brunei plans to pass law to stone homosexuals

[Gormwood]

So what's the difference between fighting off Muslim invasion and murder then?

Erm.. one involves fighting off an invading army trying to fucking siege a city. The other involves gunning down unarmed civilians in a place of worship.

Didn't the shooter rationalize it as fighting off a Muslim invasion?

[Risottia]

Erm.. one involves fighting off an invading army trying to fucking siege a city. The other involves gunning down unarmed civilians in a place of worship.

Didn't the shooter rationalize it as fighting off a Muslim invasion?

Yes, but the shooter is a criminal idiot.

[Greater Loegria]

Erm.. one involves fighting off an invading army trying to fucking siege a city. The other involves gunning down unarmed civilians in a place of worship.

Didn't the shooter rationalize it as fighting off a Muslim invasion?

He can rationalise it anyway he wants. He gunned down unarmed civilians. It is quite different. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.

[Gormwood]

Didn't the shooter rationalize it as fighting off a Muslim invasion?

He can rationalise it anyway he wants. He gunned down unarmed civilians. It is quite different. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.

The breed of people who fought off your Ilk at the gates of Vienna are long dead.

The only time I hear people talk about "fighting off invasions" in referring to Muslim immigration in the West they tend to be sympathetic to the Christchurch shooter's views.

[Andsed]

But if my BF was hypothetically a Muslim I'd have to watch him get whipped?

You don't have to if you don't want to. Where'd you get that from anyway?

Probably from your absurd suggestion that gay sex should be punished by 100 lashes which if that is actually stated by Islam them I personally would much prefer Islam fade away.

[Tokora]

I believe that criminalizing homosexuality is not worth the resources required to enforce it along with the fact that who you sleep with is a personal choice, but why stonings? If they're going to be a totalitarian theocracy, can't they be one that actually resembles the century it's in? A firing squad or maybe lethal injection, but a stoning?

Once again I completely disagree with homosexuality being illegal let alone being worth the death penalty, but even for a theocracy this is just primitive.

[Thanatttynia]

I believe that criminalizing homosexuality is not worth the resources required to enforce it along with the fact that who you sleep with is a personal choice, but why stonings? If they're going to be a totalitarian theocracy, can't they be one that actually resembles the century it's in? A firing squad or maybe lethal injection, but a stoning?

Once again I completely disagree with homosexuality being illegal let alone being worth the death penalty, but even for a theocracy this is just primitive.

Yes, the problem with this is the method employed to execute gays. Lethal injection and firing squads are no more civilised than stonings, let's be real

[The New California Republic]

I believe that criminalizing homosexuality is not worth the resources required to enforce it along with the fact that who you sleep with is a personal choice, but why stonings? If they're going to be a totalitarian theocracy, can't they be one that actually resembles the century it's in? A firing squad or maybe lethal injection, but a stoning?

...

...putting gay people in front of firing squads or tying them to a gurney and giving them a lethal injection just for having sex with another consenting adult isn't any better...

[Tokora]

Yes, the problem with this is the method employed to execute gays. Lethal injection and firing squads are no more civilised than stonings, let's be real

putting gay people in front of firing squads or tying them to a gurney and giving them a lethal injection just for having sex with another consenting adult isn't any better...

I think I'm allowed to be angered by and criticise both a terrible law and how it's enforced.

[The New California Republic]

Yes, the problem with this is the method employed to execute gays. Lethal injection and firing squads are no more civilised than stonings, let's be real

I think I'm allowed to criticise both a terrible law and how it's enforced.

I mean sure, but it's just odd that you chose to pick on the method first rather than the principle in its entirety.

[Tokora]

I think I'm allowed to criticise both a terrible law and how it's enforced.

I mean sure, but it's just odd that you chose to pick on the method first rather than the principle in its entirety.

Sorry but I just can't take the concept of a modern stoning seriously regardless of the crime.

[The Man Who Shot Jiminy Cricket]

Stoning has some precedent but I agree it is excessive to be used as a rule here. If someone should be put to death, beheading is generally preferable but I think death is too much here

Where does stoning have precedent?

Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4448

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Where does stoning have precedent?

Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4448

Vojelneit already showed that Hadith: "Abu Dawud said: The tradition of 'Asim proved the tradition of 'Amir b. Abi 'Amr as weak."

[The Man Who Shot Jiminy Cricket]

Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4448

Vojelneit already showed that Hadith: "Abu Dawud said: The tradition of 'Asim proved the tradition of 'Amir b. Abi 'Amr as weak."

That is why I said "some", I wouldn't say it is a general principle, just saying they didn't contrive it.

[The Neo-Sparta]

I believe that criminalizing homosexuality is not worth the resources required to enforce it along with the fact that who you sleep with is a personal choice, but why stonings? If they're going to be a totalitarian theocracy, can't they be one that actually resembles the century it's in? A firing squad or maybe lethal injection, but a stoning?

Once again I completely disagree with homosexuality being illegal let alone being worth the death penalty, but even for a theocracy this is just primitive.

Yes, the problem with this is the method employed to execute gays. Lethal injection and firing squads are no more civilised than stonings, let's be real

Lethal injections and firing squads are definitely more humane ways of execution than stoning is. So it’s arguably more civilized. Part of stoning is making the rocks big enough to hurt, but not big enough to kill quickly. Torture is an inherent part of it. That being said, executing gay people is illogical and horrific.

[Astoriya]

Lethal injections and firing squads are definitely more humane ways of execution than stoning is. So it’s arguably more civilized.

Popular opinion: no, none of those ways are either humane, or "civilized".
links to examples coming soon

[Varola]

Apologies, I'm quite confused as to what is curretly being discussed, Could anyone explain what is going on at the moment?

[The New California Republic]

Apologies, I'm quite confused as to what is curretly being discussed, Could anyone explain what is going on at the moment?

Read the OP. The onus is on you to figure out the premise of the thread.

[The Janglanas Islands]

Of course it is horrific, immoral, inhumane and all other negative adjectives, but unfortunately Sharia law has to be respected, and we cannot just stroll through and implement whatever WE want. Yes, the Sultan is a pigfucking rich bastard, but we don't want Iraq 2.0 do we?

[TheBadMan]

Of course it is horrific, immoral, inhumane and all other negative adjectives, but unfortunately Sharia law has to be respected, and we cannot just stroll through and implement whatever WE want. Yes, the Sultan is a pigfucking rich bastard, but we don't want Iraq 2.0 do we?

I mean, regardless of where the law comes from or how it is inspired, we sure as hell should not condone the stoning of people simply for their sexual orientation of all things. We should at least put some sort of pressure on them to change the law.

[Novus America]

Of course it is horrific, immoral, inhumane and all other negative adjectives, but unfortunately Sharia law has to be respected, and we cannot just stroll through and implement whatever WE want. Yes, the Sultan is a pigfucking rich bastard, but we don't want Iraq 2.0 do we?

I mean, regardless of where the law comes from or how it is inspired, we sure as hell should not condone the stoning of people simply for their sexual orientation of all things. We should at least put some sort of pressure on them to change the law.

Yes, there are ways of pressuring them to live up to their human rights commitments short of invasion. Economic sanctions, suspension from international organizations and the like.
Problem is Russia and China will actively undermine any attempts to support human rights.
Ultimately they are going to be the problem.

[New Bremerton]

Of course it is horrific, immoral, inhumane and all other negative adjectives, but unfortunately Sharia law has to be respected, and we cannot just stroll through and implement whatever WE want. Yes, the Sultan is a pigfucking rich bastard, but we don't want Iraq 2.0 do we?

We do not need to respect sharia or Islam as a whole. Fuck that nonsense. Brunei deserves to be isolated. Being a tiny country with a limited coastline, we could easily impose a naval blockade and a no-fly zone similar to the Israeli blockade of Gaza with devastating consequences for their economy. No ground invasion or airstrikes are necessary at this point. Simply put, nothing goes in and nothing gets out. We could cripple them just like that. Every now and then we could permit a temporary humanitarian corridor to avert a full-scale humanitarian catastrophe, but otherwise the blockade remains in place.

Maybe the United States and its allies could also pressure Malaysia to seal off the land border and sever all ties. Brunei would be totally hemmed in on all sides. Unfortunately, Malaysia also has its own share of extremists and anti-LGBT atrocities, and the country's PM has a soft spot for radical Islamists such as Indian national Zakir Naik, who currently resides in Malaysia despite his hateful views, so it's not likely Malaysia would comply with any U.S. request. Tun Mahathir has a reputation for being obstinate.

If we do place Brunei under a military blockade, it is likely the entire Muslim world, both people and governments, and certainly more than a handful of supposedly "moderate" Western Muslims, would rise up in solidarity with their "oppressed" Muslim brothers and sisters instead of standing up for LGBT rights in Brunei. They might even send a Turkish-sponsored "aid flotilla" once a year to "break the siege". It would truly make my blood boil if that happened, and it would merely reinforce people's suspicions about the "average" Muslim and about Islam as a religion and political ideology.

Yes, there are ways of pressuring them to live up to their human rights commitments short of invasion. Economic sanctions, suspension from international organizations and the like.
Problem is Russia and China will actively undermine any attempts to support human rights.
Ultimately they are going to be the problem.

What are Russia and China going to do to prop up Hassanal Bolkiah once there's a naval and aerial blockade by U.S. forces? Nothing, but only if the Americans act swiftly. Brunei is right on China's doorstep. The Chinese-occupied Spratlys are right around the corner. Such a blockade would also serve to check China's aggressive territorial expansion in the South China Sea and deter any unwelcome interference from Beijing. As for the dreaded Russian and Chinese UNSC veto, it's not like Washington hasn't disregarded UN resolutions in the past. They can do so again. The United Nations can go to hell.

[Genivaria]

Of course it is horrific, immoral, inhumane and all other negative adjectives, but unfortunately Sharia law has to be respected, and we cannot just stroll through and implement whatever WE want. Yes, the Sultan is a pigfucking rich bastard, but we don't want Iraq 2.0 do we?

That's where you're wrong boyo.

[The New California Republic]

Of course it is horrific, immoral, inhumane and all other negative adjectives, but unfortunately Sharia law has to be respected, and we cannot just stroll through and implement whatever WE want. Yes, the Sultan is a pigfucking rich bastard, but we don't want Iraq 2.0 do we?

Why?

[Astoriya]

Of course it is horrific, immoral, inhumane and all other negative adjectives, but unfortunately Sharia law has to be respected, and we cannot just stroll through and implement whatever WE want. Yes, the Sultan is a pigfucking rich bastard, but we don't want Iraq 2.0 do we?

I mean, regardless of where the law comes from or how it is inspired, we sure as hell should not condone the stoning of people simply for their sexual orientation of all things. We should at least put some sort of pressure on them to change the law.

signal boost

Yes, the Sultan is a pigfucking rich bastard, but we don't want Iraq 2.0 do we?

what
Has this now turned into some sort of slanging match?
*flashback to #piggate*