How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Girl With Nose Cut Off On Time Mag Cover   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Girl With Nose Cut Off On Time Mag Cover

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


50 posted 08-11-2010 08:53 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Maybe this will help your understanding, Balladeer. "Men are also stoned and mutilated."  was an in passing comment meant to point out that men and women, not just women, have been/are being stoned and mutilated for certain crimes and acts.

Yes, I understand now. I had thought you were making the comparison for similar acts/crimes between the two groups but I see it was just a general statement tossed in for whatever. Thanks for the explanation.

It's good that you are using Fox News for your fact-finding. There is hope...
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


51 posted 08-11-2010 09:04 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:

Actually, attaching the idiocy to violence against women sidesteps the issue of it being condoned and permissable by sharia law, which is basically what this thread refers to. It is not only about violence to women, which occurs in every country in the world, rather about a religion that allows and condones it.



     I too believed that the thread was about Muslims and  sharia, and responded to that perception.  John literally questioned my response ("?").  He was not forthcoming with any more details than that.

     Therefore, it appears that his intention was other than to question the tenets of that Religion and of sharia law.

     Should there be a clear statement by John that says otherwise, I see no evidence of it.  I see only his question of my assumption and his refusal of a chance to clarify his meaning.

     If Mike intends to speak for John, it might be a good idea if he could get John's agreement, first.  In thart way both of us would have a much clearer notion of what John's intention might have been for the thread.  In the meantime, I see no evidence that Mike's understanding of that purpose is other than mindreading.  Should Mike care to offer evidence otherwise, I would be happy to be convinced otherwise, but simple assertion is not enough, and my own capacity for error is as ample as Mike's is.

     I would also suggest that any pretense of understanding of sharia law by Mike would be an error, as would an assumption of understanding of Napoleonic Law or of Rabbinic Law.  I have difficulty with American Law, and our Lawyers seem to quarrel about it all the time.

     The violence visited on many Muslim women may or may not be attached to Sharia law.  John used a reference to sutee, which is not Muslim at all, as far as I understand it, but a Hindu custom, and not applicable to all Hindus at that.  Yet John apparently clumps it in with sharia.  Female genital mutilation is a custom in both some Muslim cultures and some non-muslim cultures through Africa, and it may be a custom in other places as well.  Sharia as far as I know has nothing to do with it, though some Muslim cultures in Egypt apparently act as though it does.

     It apparently runs with the same sort of cultural custom that one finds cross culturally in many corners of the globe and it affects both genders.  In Australia, it was researched and filmed as applied to boys in a rite called sub-incision.  The anthropologist who did the work was the Hungarian Freudian anthropologist Geza Roheim.

     With men it is part of initiation rites, like a bar mitzva, as Female genital mutilation is supposed to be part of the initiation into the women's mysteries.

     These ceremonies and rites initiate youths into the inner workings of the culture.

      The sort of punishment that the woman on the cover of Time incurred may be covered up in some of the more backward parts of the society, yet it may still happen.

     When I moved to Virginia in 1966, the sheriff of one small local community beat his wife to death when he found her in bed with another guy.  He shot the other guy to death.  The next door neighbor, in explaining the case to my family, used this phrase to my father, "same as you or I would do."  In this down home part of Virginia, this was what was expected behavior, and the jury let the sheriff off after a very short deliberation.  I don't remember if he was elected next time around or not, though I wouldn't have been surprised.  The key was that phrase, "same as you or I would have done."

     There was no sharia law involved there, it was plain, down home American justice, and everybody would have look at you funny if you'd have suggested that there was anything Muslim about it.  It was simply the way things were done.  It was the way you were more or less expected to treat infidelity.

     Now the country has changed a lot in the forty years since, but what were talking about in Afghanistan isn't all that different.  It is wrong.  It is beastly.  It should be illegal and that law should be enforced strictly.

     But don't pretend that it doesn't happen here, and don't blame it on the religion, or not solely, at least.  That's simply plain racism, and it suggests that such horrors couldn't, and don't happen here.  I've worked in the hospital system, and I know that's not true, and at least some of the people I'm talking to have worked in the hospital system as well.  They should know better.  And those of you who've worked in the justice system ought to have seen almost as much as I have.

    
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


52 posted 08-11-2010 09:49 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, you have resorted once again to speaking of me in the third person. If you have something to say about my thoughts or intentions please do me the courtesy of speaking to me, not about me. That way you can save yourself a lot of surmising. I appreciate it.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


53 posted 08-11-2010 10:49 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I continue to be amazed. An article, appearing in Time, showing pictures of a woman mutilated for no other  reason than wanting to leave an abusive relationship, should provoke horror at the act, disdain for a law which condones it, and sympathy for the victims that endure this. Instead it produces references to...

- female circumcision

- unrestricted abortion rights

- dropping cluster bombs on civilians

- how we allow children to be executed

- men being stoned and mutilated for commiting major crimes

- rape and assault against women high in the U.S.

- gas chambers and electrocutions barbaric

- Austrailian boys in a rite called sub-incision

- bar mitzvah initiation rites

- a sheriff beating his wife to death

  " I myself am not sure exactly how to evaluate the whole story and where to put emphasis on the overall picture."....Bob

How about the emphasis on simply the horror of it? There's no need for the sideroads, really. It is an unpardonable action condoned by a religion. It would be unpardonable,even if every country in the world participated in it. No one called for war against countries who practice it, simply that people be aware  that is actually is condoned. The way you responded in your post#4, Bob, I wouldn't have responded to you, either.

It's all horrific.  That's the evaluation....
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


54 posted 08-12-2010 03:09 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I beg your pardon, but I doubt any religion sanctioned it.  Rabbinic courts function in the United States.  Not all Jews recognize their authority.  Not all Muslims recognize sharia law over the law of the land, depending on the land where they live.  Have you examined Rabbinic Law?  

     If you had, you wouldn't be speaking as you do.  

     There are extremists in Israel who would very much like to go back to use of biblical Law.  Have you, perchance, had a look at that particular abomination?  Stoning is not peculiar is sharia law by any means.

     The more conservative sections of the Muslim religion may indeed feel that such actions are legitimate, but then they hardly speak for the entire religion, do they?  Any more than the most conservative Christian sects speak for the entire Christian community in the West.  In both instances, I'm sure they would love to do so.  In both cases they are frustrated because they do not and cannot impose their views about the culture and the customs of their culture upon the rest of their communities.

     Perhaps you disagree with this?

     Perhaps you believe I made the list of accusations you laid out.  I believe I did not, though I believe that most of them are correct.

     I notice you have stopped trying to claim authority for the nature of the thread, but haven't acknowledged you were probably mistaken in trying to do so in the first place.  I am grateful you have at least stopped trying to claim authority in the matter.  Thank you.

     Perhaps you have also missed my frequent references to the fact that I believe that the actions taken by whomever took the actions against the woman in question were barbaric.  I will happily repeat myself.  They were barbaric.  They were cruel and terrible and nobody should be treated in this way.

     I would raise questions about why you seem to be trying to excuse the actions of others when they do the same sort of thing.  If people attempting to enforce sharia law on some poor woman are barbaric swine when they do this sort of thing, why aren't we barbarians when we drop bombs on wedding parties?  Does the fact that we don't actually know personally any of the victims make the action less barbaric?  Not to my mind.

     Suggesting that these were accidents isn't really much of an excuse, since the war itself was not an accident at all.  We knew that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.  And the involvement that Afghanistan had could have been settled by allowing the government to turn Bin Laden over to a neutral government for trial; failing that, it could have been settled by pursuing that war to a conclusion instead of invading Iraq.

     Suggesting that the sort of atrocity committed on this poor woman is justification for war is patently ridiculous, else we'd have declared war on Egypt and Pakistan, among other countries.  We use atrocities to whip up a rage for war, not as reason to declare it.  We go to war for reasons of national self-interest and occasionally out of stupidity and error, the same way other nations go to war.

     The same horrors that happen in other places to women happen here.

     I notice that you, Mike, (and you have specifically requested me to address you directly.  I will try to keep the subject fixed on the subject, however) have not addressed the point I made about the experience of people with police experience having had experience enough to be able to confirm what I say.  You have some police experience, I believe.  You should be able to confirm my point about the frequency and severity of the abuse of women in this country.  I notice you have avoided dealing with this point.  

     If you have had much police experience, they you should be able to confirm my comments and in fact add to them in spades.  I suspect you would rather not address the issue because it reflects badly on the state of the relations between men and women here, and it confirms the level of violence is high here as well.

     And you are reluctant to speak poorly of your fellow Americans.  I think, at least.

     I am as well, but one should be willing to address the truth.

     And there are serious problems in other cultures as well, and the cultural norms there aren't American norms.  But we've both seen seriously injured American women, and they've been injured by American men, who offer really stupid excuses, not simply the really stupid excuses offered by some very early Muslim Law that's been inappropriately applied by some guys who don't really understand it, but really stupid excuses that have been offered by guys who can read and who have some notion about there being a real live outside world.  Both of us have seen that sort of thing.

     Acting scornful of me for bringing it up doesn't really address the problem we have right here any more than it addresses the problem they have over there.  That's what I think.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


55 posted 08-12-2010 07:35 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Yes, Bob, as you know I do have the police experience and I could add to your list of atrocities in ways you can't even imagine. However, in the case of everything I could list, there would be one common denominator...they were all crimes perpetrated by criminals who were hunted down and punished for their crime.

The question is not whether a religion sanctioned it but, rather, that the government sanctioned it as part of religious law, without punishment.

There are parts of the Bible that, when taken literally, can produce similar results...an eye for an eye comes to mind. There are undoubtedly Christians who believe this. Does that mean that, if an act is committed against one, one has the right to hunt them down and exact revenge? Perhaps in their mind it does, but not according to the law of the land and they will go to prison for it. Could they get a sympathetic jury issuing a light sentence? Very possible...but they would still be convicted and punished in some way. When the government hands out passes to barbaric acts committed on innocents because it is a part of a religion recognized by some as just, both the religion and the government share in the barbarism.

There are some in this country that believe sharia law is a good thing, without recognizing these traits. Both Time magazine and John brought it up and showed the results of what it can do. If you want to criticize John for doing so, I can only imagine how you feel about Time magazine.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


56 posted 08-12-2010 08:13 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"And you are reluctant to speak poorly of your fellow Americans.  I think, at least .I am as well, but one should be willing to address the truth. ".....BobK

"If people attempting to enforce sharia law on some poor woman are barbaric swine when they do this sort of thing, why aren't we barbarians when we drop bombs on wedding parties?"....BobK

I don't think you are reluctant at all, Bob, based on that comparison, along with many others you have made.


Whenever I think of the differences between liberals and conservatives, one thing always stands out louder than the others.

Conservatives are, for the greatest part, always pro-America. They speak of the good of America, the kindness and generosity of t he American people. They salute our military and support them completely. People that liberals despise, like Rush, Hannity, Beck and O'Reilly speak only good of the country. They hold concerts, freedom rallies, 4th of July spectaculars involving hundreds of thousands of attendees, fund-raisers for the troops, and if you have ever seen one, you would see that they are not political, they are pro-America. They do not post political signs, they do not use these events to bash liberals...they celebrate the goodness of America, which they believe in. One leaves them with a feeling of pride and optimism in their country. I dare you to watch a televised production of one of these events and not walk away feling good about America.

Liberals appear to be the opposite to me. I haven't seen any concerts or fund-raising events held by liberals, have you? Has Rachel or Keith or any of the liberal popular talking heads orchestrated any such events? Do they speak positively of America and the military? I don't hear it. While conservatives salute the military, people like Kerry and others bash it, speaking of rapes, atrocities and cruelty performed by our troops. Giants of our industry like Wal-Mart and Microsoft are branded as enemies of the country. Law enforcement agencies are branded as "stupid" and "prejudicial" by our president. I have watched the liberal talk shows and I hear no optimism or love of country at all. I hear exactly the opposite. This thread alone bears me out. Conservatives like Denise and myself speak of the barbarism perpetrated on this young girl and others like her. Liberals like you and Jennifer speak of the evilness of American actions, ranging from Bush, to war to bombings to our law-enforcement agencies to whatever bad things about America you can use. That says a lot about the two sides of the coin.

No, Bob, I am not reluctant to speak poorly of my fellow Americans. I see no reason to. I am proud of them, our country, and what our country stands for. We have the same highs and lows as any other country in the world but I am proud of the American citizen and what our country is and stands for, which is one reason why I could never be a liberal. Conservatives will attack liberal leaders but never the country. Liberals attack the country, as you have so aptly illustrated in your replies.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


57 posted 08-12-2010 08:51 AM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

The “humanitarian” campaign for the war in Afghanistan
10 August 2010
The US media has launched a full-scale effort to suppress growing popular opposition to the war in Afghanistan, using one-sided propaganda about Taliban atrocities to conceal the murderous character of the American intervention. Beginning with the cover of Time magazine, showing a young woman mutilated by her Taliban husband, the media blitz now focuses on the killing of 10 medical aid workers Friday in the northeastern province of Badakhshan. Six of the ten were American citizens.

Both of these events are, without a doubt, terrible human tragedies. But they are being used in the most cynical fashion to browbeat the American people into accepting an indefinite continuation of the war in Afghanistan, under conditions where a clear majority of the population now regards the war with hostility and favors a rapid US pullout.

The July 29 issue of Time marked the official kickoff of the campaign, with the cover photo of the young woman whose nose and ears were hacked off for attempting to flee her husband, and an accompanying headline declaring this atrocity to be “What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan.” The political message was unmistakable: those who advocate withdrawal of US forces are condemning Afghan women to butchery.

Managing Editor Rick Stengel gave the following explanation to readers upset at the magazine for publishing the gruesome image, writing, “I felt that the image is a window into the reality of what is happening—and what can happen—in a war that affects and involves all of us. I would rather confront readers with the Taliban’s treatment of women than ignore it. I would rather people know that reality as they make up their minds about what the US and its allies should do in Afghanistan.”

It is fair to ask a different question, however. Why didn’t the Time editor publish a photograph on the magazine’s front cover of any of the thousands of innocent Afghan men, women and children killed by US air strikes, missiles, artillery and mortar shells? He might have chosen the scene at Kunduz, where 140 people were incinerated in a single air strike that detonated a gasoline tanker. Or the wedding party in the eastern province of Nangarhar, where 47 were blown to fragments by bombs and missiles, including the young bride. Or the 90 people machine-gunned by US helicopter gunships during a funeral ceremony in Herat province. Or any of the hundreds of individual, small-scale killings of civilians detailed in the recent release of documents by WikiLeaks.

There are enough such victims of imperialism in Iraq and Afghanistan to fill the covers of American news magazines for decades to come. But the giant corporations that control the media are not in the business of informing the American people about the atrocities being committed in their name. Their task is to manipulate public opinion in the interests of policies decided on by the financial aristocracy and its political representatives, and they are hard at work at that task.

The Time cover is a lie on another level as well. The horrific treatment of women under the Taliban (and to a large extent under the US-backed Karzai regime as well), is itself the product of the American intervention in Afghanistan over the course of three decades. The Carter and Reagan administrations sought to mobilize opposition to a Soviet-backed regime in which, at least in urban areas, women had substantially improved rights, education and social standing. The mujahedin were drawn from the most right-wing elements in the Islamic world, financed by Saudi Arabia, trained by the CIA in terror techniques, and dispatched to Afghanistan. Among them was the future leader of Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden.


The United States government deliberately fomented and spread a version of Islamic fundamentalism that had no widespread support at the time, except from a handful of close US allies like the Saudi monarchy. When the mujahedin warlords fell into civil war after the Soviet withdrawal, the Pakistani military, with US backing, promoted the Taliban as a more reliable replacement. Thus the Taliban, like Al Qaeda, is very much a Frankenstein’s monster, raised up in the course of the Cold War struggle with the USSR, which has turned against its creator.

The killing of the medical missionaries in Badakhshan has now become the focus of saturation media coverage. Many basic facts of the massacre remain uncertain, including the affiliation of the killers. There have been suggestions that bandits motivated by robbery were actually involved, despite the Taliban’s claim of responsibility. Most other encounters between unarmed Western aid workers and insurgent forces have resulted in kidnapping for ransom and propaganda purposes, and only a handful, albeit well-publicized, have ended in murder.

Whatever the exact circumstances, however, such atrocities are an absolutely inevitable by-product of a counterinsurgency war waged by an imperialist state armed with overwhelming firepower against an enemy rooted in a tribal society that has proven fiercely hostile to foreign occupiers.

The bulk of the US media coverage initially focused on the individual medical aid workers, their long labors in Afghanistan, and the sorrowful impact on their families and colleagues, but has begun to exploit the event to promote the war. One New York tabloid published its report under a giant one-word headline, “SAVAGES,” consciously or unconsciously making the connection between US policy in Afghanistan and the attempted extermination of Native Americans in the 19th century.

The Obama administration began to draw its desired political conclusions from the event Sunday, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issuing a statement denouncing the “despicable act of wanton violence” that revealed the “twisted ideology” of the Taliban, and reaffirming her government’s determination to prevail in the war, now nearly nine years old.

Characteristically, the Wall Street Journal drew the most explicit and reactionary conclusions from the event in an editorial Monday headlined “The Taliban Method,” calling the killings “especially notable as an education in the nature of our enemy.”

“The murders are a window on the threat that thousands of Afghans face every day if they dare to cooperate with the Afghan government,” the Journal continued. “The assassinations and disfigurements (cutting off ears or arms) are a war tactic, designed to make it harder for the government to collect intelligence and deliver services to win over the population.”

This ignores the well-known fact that a large majority of the Afghan people oppose the US-led occupation of their country and Washington’s corrupt puppet government in Kabul. Moreover, the high-tech war machine operated by the Pentagon inflicts far worse damage on the bodies of its victims, without the well-paid reactionaries in US editorial offices shedding any tears.

The Journal concludes, “The main US strategic purpose in this war is self-defense in denying an Al Qaeda sanctuary. But our cause also includes the moral imperative of preventing Islamic radicals from a victory that would give them rein to maim and murder thousands of innocents.”

This combines the lie that was the original basis for the invasion of Afghanistan—the war as revenge for the 9/11 terrorist attacks—with the “moral” and “humanitarian” rationale now being propagated so assiduously by the American media.

In his explanation of why Time published its cover photograph, executive editor Stengel makes a revealing reference to the fact that “The much publicized release of classified documents by WikiLeaks has already ratcheted up the debate about the war.” A major reason for the furious hostility towards WikiLeaks is that this small Internet-based organization has broken through the self-censorship practiced by the vast corporate-controlled media machine.

Those who play the decision-making role—the editors of the leading newspapers and magazines, the executives, producers and anchormen of the major television networks—are well aware of the nature of the war in Afghanistan. WikiLeaks was no revelation to them. In their deliberate suppression of the brutality of the American war, they play an important role in enabling the crimes of imperialism.

Patrick Martin
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


58 posted 08-12-2010 09:30 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



    Untrue and inaccurate, Mike.

     You have acknowledged the various atrocities Americans have committed upon Americans, which is a decent start.  I personally have been supportive of American troops.  I am not always supportive of American policy any more than you are.  When Clinton was involved with the bombing in Kosovo during the hearings that Republicans were using to try to remove him from office, for example, I would suspect that you were supporting the Republican position on that military intervention while I would have been supportive of the intervention.  I would have seen your criticism of the government position as undermining government policy.  It could have been seen as being critical of the military mission, and this is the sort of cast that Republicans tend to cast criticism of government policy when they are in power.

     In that case I saw it as criticism of government policy which I supported and not any particular criticism of the troops.  I agreed with their mission, but could see that reasonable people might disagree on the basis of policy, so long as the criticism wasn't directed at the troops themselves.

     I've criticized the policies that have placed our troops in the middle east on several reasonable grounds.  I have not criticized the goodwill of the troops.  

     I have no problem at all with celebrating what is good about America.  My problem is with the pretense that there is only good about America, and that we have no responsibility for noticing and correcting those problems that we have as a country.  I don't mean blaming others for our problems, I mean taking responsibility for the problems we create.  Starting a war, for example, with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 was irresponsible.  Lying about the causes of that war was irresponsible.  Suggesting that we didn't do large amounts of bombing in pursuit of that war is irresponsible, and that a large number of the casualties of that bombing were civilian non-combatants is irresponsible.

     Do I celebrate America.  Certainly I do.

     Do I celebrate those actions.  I do not; I deplore them.

     I have mixed feelings about almost everything and everybody in my life that has any importance to me.  Some people do not.  These are people who do not allow themselves access to a full range of feeling and information about these events and people or who do not allow the significance of this information and these feelings to sink in.  They can be wonderful people, like Edith and Archie Bunker, salt of the earth in their own fashion.  They simply can't tolerate mixed feelings.

quote:

"If people attempting to enforce sharia law on some poor woman are barbaric swine when they do this sort of thing, why aren't we barbarians when we drop bombs on wedding parties?"....BobK



     I notice that you, Mike, whom I only address personally here because you actively requested me to, believe as I do that the behavior directed toward the poor brave woman in Afghanistan was barbaric.  Why isn't the sort of bombing that we do and have done in Afghanistan and Iraq also barbaric, then?  And why is it impossible for you to conceive that it's possible for Americans to be both decent Joes and Barbarians at the same time?  Have the rules of human nature been somehow magically suspended for us?  Have we been somehow simplified as human beings so that we exist with only a single side of our natures available?  And that side, because we are American, will always be the good side?

     I see that as unreasonable.  

     I see that as unreasonable as the reverse, that we are entirely evil, when we are not.

     And yet the attempt to simplify human nature continues  as though humanity and politics were that simple, and Liberals and Conservatives were that simply defined.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


59 posted 08-12-2010 12:41 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


"The US media has launched a full-scale effort to suppress growing popular opposition to the war in Afghanistan"


Well, there's a twist . . .


.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


60 posted 08-12-2010 02:50 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
I think there is sufficient evidence, Grinch, of the evil done around the world, especially to women, in the name of Sharia.


Of course there is but there's also a lot of good stuff done under the name of Sharia law too and guess what, it's only the good bits that the people are asking for. In Kenya for instance the Sharia courts will have the same powers as a tribunal, they'll hear disputes regarding religious, family and business matters between Muslims only if both parties agree to it. There'll be no stoning, no decapitations and any findings or judgements handed down will be open to being overruled in the standard courts.

The proposed Sharia courts will be closer to Judge Judy than the Judge Dread picture you are trying to paint.



If consenting Muslims want a system to deal with cultural disagreements that don't fit into the standard system why shouldn't they be accommodated?

Still not convinced it's a good idea? Maybe you're right, we'll soon find out though - as I said under the new Kenyan constitution both parties have to consent to having their case heard in a Sharia court, if no Muslims in Kenya agree to settle their disagreements in a Sharia court I'll be happy to concede that it wasn't a good idea.

quote:
Obama did more than 'support' it. He funded the VOTE YES campaign for Sharia and abortion to the tune of $23 million. And I'm sure that $23 million goes much further there than in Western economies.


How much did the Democrats spend in the last election trying to convince you to vote for them Denise? I might be wide of the mark but I'm guessing it didn't work, I'd go even further and suggest that it actually convinced some people to vote for the other side.

The money the US spent made Kenyans aware of the referendum but the choice of which way to vote was down to the individuals and they made their choice all on their lonesome.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


61 posted 08-12-2010 03:30 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"(You)believe as I do that the behavior directed toward the poor brave woman in Afghanistan was barbaric.  Why isn't the sort of bombing that we do and have done in Afghanistan and Iraq also barbaric, then?"

My question would be the same one Juju asked at the beginning of this thread. What does one have to do with the other? How does a woman being butchered for leaving an abusive relationship relate to Afghanistan bombings? Why should they even be in the same thread? Is it simply an irrepressable desire to say "We're nasty, too"? Where is the connection?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


62 posted 08-12-2010 03:38 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Jennifer, you didn't provide a link to the article you posted. Be so kind,,,,?
Mysteria
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 03-07-2001
Posts 19652
British Columbia, Canada


63 posted 08-12-2010 05:59 PM       View Profile for Mysteria   Email Mysteria   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Mysteria

Jennifer, if I may?

Michael, that article is all over the internet.   You know how it works, one posts, then sites steal it and post it from there.  Here you go.  

Google - Multiple Links To Jennifer's posted article
Mysteria
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 03-07-2001
Posts 19652
British Columbia, Canada


64 posted 08-12-2010 07:35 PM       View Profile for Mysteria   Email Mysteria   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Mysteria

I actually put all those links into date order to see where this got started, and it was interesting to see where it was.  the People's Voice.   Not a real reliable news source is it? http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/
Then it was picked up by World Socialist Website.  
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


65 posted 08-12-2010 08:43 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Thanks for posting all those links Mysteria.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


66 posted 08-12-2010 09:44 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

quote:
Of course there is but there's also a lot of good stuff done under the name of Sharia law too and guess what, it's only the good bits that the people are asking for. In Kenya for instance the Sharia courts will have the same powers as a tribunal, they'll hear disputes regarding religious, family and business matters between Muslims only if both parties agree to it. There'll be no stoning, no decapitations and any findings or judgements handed down will be open to being overruled in the standard courts.


They can do that now without it being elevated to legal status in the government. There has to be a reason why they wanted it elevated to legal status. We're not being given the whole story here. Perhaps it's a just a 'foot in the door'?

The Quran teaches that Sharia is the Law of Allah, and that all other forms of government are sinful and that it is the duty of all muslims to strive until Sharia is the law of the land worldwide.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0deanRGb8w&feature=player_embedded
quote:
If consenting Muslims want a system to deal with cultural disagreements that don't fit into the standard system why shouldn't they be accommodated?


What types of cultural disagreements could be addressed by a Sharia, elevated to legal status, that couldn't be addressed by the secular law, or by the Sharia practiced prior to being given legal status?
quote:
How much did the Democrats spend in the last election trying to convince you to vote for them Denise? I might be wide of the mark but I'm guessing it didn't work, I'd go even further and suggest that it actually convinced some people to vote for the other side.

The money the US spent made Kenyans aware of the referendum but the choice of which way to vote was down to the individuals and they made their choice all on their lonesome.


Not all people are won over by campaign blitzes, Grinch, but many are. Otherwise why have them? The fact remains that Obama was a major force, with our dollars, to heavily promote the Vote Yes campaign. Again, I ask why? Why did he choose that side over the other? Can anyone here explain or defend his decision? If some feel that it was the right decision, WHY do you believe that?

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


67 posted 08-12-2010 11:01 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Rabbinic law has a similar status here, in some communities, Denise.  Where I grew up it was fairly common for the rebbe to function as judge in many disputes within the religious community that might otherwise have been seen in a secular court.  The orthodox rebbe, one of them, was a scholar in Jewish divorce law and wrote about it extensively in Hebrew, not that I was ever able to read any of his stuff.

     Surely if your comments about sharia law are true, then the same comments about rabbinic law must be true as well.  What sinister plots do you feel the Jews were up to?  And what sinister plots do you feel the more orthodox Muslims are up to, so long as they practice their faith in the constraints of the wider judicial system.

     That would probably exclude the stoning and trimming of noses and hands and so on that were a feature of so many basic religious legal systems.  For that matter, nose trimming and hand loping were features of the English justice system until the past few hundred years.  Not to mention burning for witches and other penalties for the misdeeds of (mostly) women.  Our fascination with these practices is quite clear still when you look at what we offer for entertainment in our movies and on our televisions.

     The distance that we've come from actual belief in many of these things may not be all that far when you consider the number of snake handling religious practices in this country, which operate, if I understand correctly, as proofs of faith.  

     It's always more comforting to think of the other people as the barbarians.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


68 posted 08-13-2010 01:09 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The People's Voice and World Socialist Website....no, not very reliable at all. Thank you, Sharon
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


69 posted 08-13-2010 01:15 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"It's always more comforting to think of the other people as the barbarians."

Ok, Bob, you've won me over. We are the barbarians.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


70 posted 08-13-2010 02:30 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     Well, Mike, I think it would have to do with the point being made by the original stories, wouldn't it?

     I believe that the point of many of these sorts of stories is to dehumanize the enemy, and thus to justify any action you wish to take against him or her.  Perhaps you think that there are other reasons for selecting this sort of story for publicity at the expense of offering other sorts of information in addition.

     Suggesting that this sort of story should be suppressed is, I believe, a mistake because — among other things, it does represent at least one important aspect of the truth, and  we can do well to find as much of the truth and the facts as we can, and to pay attention to them.  I am not in favor of pretending that everything is all good or all evil.  I don't believe I've run across anything that I could jimmy into one of those slots so far in my life, though Love comes very close, as does Compassion.

     I am particularly skeptical about any story that paints somebody I am not supposed to like in terms of absolute evil.  Again, I'm not sticking up for Stalin or Hitler here; there are situations where evil is more obvious than others, just as there are cases where good is more obvious, but it's not absolute as far as I've seen outside of theological debates, and not even in all of those.

     In this case, the case of the barbaric treatment of the woman on the Time Magazine cover, I doubt there is much sentiment that speaks to how noble and wonderful the folks who did this stuff to her was.  If there is such sentiment, I find it hard to fathom and difficult to sympathize with, and I have fairly serious doubts that there are a lot of Muslims who'd really want to support such a stance.  There may be some.  As there may be some Christians who'd believe that women should be in very circumscribed roles, and who should not be permitted outside of them.  We have had trouble in this country with some very extreme Mormon cults which abuse women and children in severe ways, including murdering them.  There are Jewish extremists that can have very fixed and rigid views about the roles of women.  These views are not Muslim alone, they seem more fanatic than particular to any one particular species of fanatic.

     Why do they come into the debate?

     Because they skew the debate away from the actual issues and attempt to transform it into a comparison of the worst of one culture against the pretensions of another.  It is interesting to look at other propaganda campaigns for comparison, that of the Russians versus the Germans during the Second World War, for example, where two totalitarian powers attempted to convince their populations that they were superior to the beasts that inhabited the other, and where both sides were guilty of significant war crimes.

     In this case, the issue is also a propaganda issue, not because the case at hand is false — it isn't false at all — but because it obscures the moral issues of the war being fought.  We are not fighting the war in afghanistan because of the wretched way some Afghanistani men treat their women.  These are in fact the same Afghanistani men that we made into cultural heroes here in America when they fought the USSR, with American support, in the 1970s and 1980s.  The customs were the same and Osama Bin Laden was one of our guys who ran a supply depot for the mujahadin fighters there.  (Al Qaeda means "The Depot," I'm told.)

     The treatment of women and the ideas about religion were not significantly different at that time.  Except our propaganda was anti-soviet at that time.

     As I said before, we seem to get along fine with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, where many of these same customs are common.  If we were against the customs, why aren't we preparing a publicity blitz against these other countries?

     Because we are trying to keep support high for a war in which there is declining interest.

     Why should we criticize American actions?

     Well, I would suppose that their being wrong isn't enough for you.  It really seems that it ought to be, since that seems to be the basis for the criticism for the criticism of beastly behavior of the fanatics in Afghanistan.  It seems that the position that our Right Wing is advocating here is that atrocities are foul when our enemies commit them, but should not be discussed when we do.  Apparently it's unpatriotic.

     I was under the impression that free countries were free because they were supposed be be open to examination.  Scrutiny would be one of the things that kept them honest.  That's why the press is supposed to be able to write about this stuff.  As they say in AA, "You're only as sick as your secrets."  I hear the Right Wing being particularly jealous of the need for this Democracy, if AA is right, to be very sick indeed.  Apparently we need lots and lots of secrets and we need to deny a lot of real and true things to survive, if the Right Wing is to have its way.  What we do to prisoners, the way we bomb, and target groups of people, and the reasons we go to war are not things that the Right wants to have known or to tell the truth about.

     And what I am saying is that these things are very much to the point.  If you want to tell the story of why the poor woman lost her nose and ears in Afghanistan, then I think we should be wanting to know why we aren't hearing about the same sorts of things among people that we consider our allies.  I want to know, if these sorts of things are so horrible, and they are, then why aren't we hearing about the horrors that we control.

     I think it's silly to say that they aren't relevant.  You can bet that the people in Afghanistan who are moved to take up arms against us because of such things find them very much to the point.  To pretend this isn't the case is like asking folks to disregard gravity or death.  It makes for grand rhetoric, but has no practical value.  And showing contempt because I call attention to the issue is not a way of actually proving the point wrong.  It's merely a way of trying to assert superiority by proclamation, and has the same effect of an attempt to proclaim one's self Pope without the backing of the cardinals.

    

    

    
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


71 posted 08-13-2010 07:40 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

" I believe that the point of many of these sorts of stories is to dehumanize the enemy, and thus to justify any action you wish to take against him or her.

I am particularly skeptical about any story that paints somebody I am not supposed to like in terms of absolute evil.

Because they skew the debate away from the actual issues and attempt to transform it into a comparison of the worst of one culture against the pretensions of another.

In this case, the issue is also a propaganda issue, not because the case at hand is false — it isn't false at all — but because it obscures the moral issues of the war being fought.

Because we are trying to keep support high for a war in which there is declining interest."


Well, Bob, those are certainly thoughts espoused by the World Socialist Website article.

"It seems that the position that our Right Wing is advocating here is that atrocities are foul when our enemies commit them, but should not be discussed when we do.  Apparently it's unpatriotic."

Here you lose me. How does the right wing figure into this? If you check the Oval Office, Obama is sitting in there. If you check further, you will see that he is not a member of the right wing. This information is coming out during HIS administration and HIS administration is certainly saying nothing against it. One should assume that it connects to our being in Afghanistan NOW and not pulling out, with Obama in charge. One must further assume that, for you to make such statements, you must find quite a bit of disfavor with Obama for using such a tactic and yet, in some way I can't fathom, you attribute it to the right wing. That makes no sense at all. I realize that wanting to have it both ways is not uncommon, but you really can't do it here with any validity.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


72 posted 08-13-2010 03:31 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Sooooo....those here who claim that Obama did the right thing in Kenya don't care to explain why they believe that? Interesting.

Bob, I don't see any rabbis or the pope trying to get the religious laws of their faiths elevated to legal status along with secular law in different countries around the world.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


73 posted 08-13-2010 06:14 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Anyway, here’s another article about Bibi Aisha:

Afghan Women Have Already Been Abandoned

“I know Bibi Aisha, the young Afghan woman pictured on the August 9 cover of Time, and I rejoice that her mutilated nose and ears are going to be surgically repaired. But the logic of those who use Aisha's story to convince us that the US military must stay in Afghanistan escapes me. Even Aisha has already left for America.

I realize that last remark has no logical basis, but then neither does the Time cover line "What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan" beside a shocking photo depicting what happened (to this woman) after we had already stayed for eight years. I heard Aisha's story from her a few weeks before the image of her face was displayed all over the world. She told me that her father-in-law caught up with her after she ran away, and took a knife to her on his own; village elders later approved, but the Taliban didn't figure at all in this account. The Time story, however, attributes Aisha's mutilation to a husband under orders of a Talib commander, thereby transforming a personal story, similar to those of countless women in Afghanistan today, into a portent of things to come for all women if the Taliban return to power. Profoundly traumatized, Aisha might well muddle her story, but what excuses reporters who seem to inflate the role of the Taliban with every repetition of the case? Some reports have Aisha "sentenced" by a whole Taliban "jirga."
http://www.thenation.com/article/154020/afghan-women-have-already-been-abandoned

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


74 posted 08-13-2010 06:28 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:

Bob, I don't see any rabbis or the pope trying to get the religious laws of their faiths elevated to legal status along with secular law in different countries around the world.



     I thought that the Pope was putting a lot of effort to do so, and in our country, where Law is supposed to be secular, and where he has put a lot of effort to get that law changed to bring it into conformation with church doctrine in relation to abortion, to cite one huge example.  Many conservative Christians and Jews have done so.

     I'm somewhat surprised you hadn't noticed.

     In case it's evaded your notice, this is not the only country in the world where Christian and Jewish conservatives have attempted to influence the laws in this fashion.

     Apparently it only seems disgusting when some other religion does it or when the point is not in agreement with your own personal point of view.

     I would suggest that it's pretty much unamerican in all these situations.  At least that's what the Bill of Rights says.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Girl With Nose Cut Off On Time Mag Cover   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors