I know that FoxNews is the stuff of Satan here, but I found this story interesting.

Advice from Dr. Muhammad Al-'Arifi (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307680,00.html)

Move over, Dr. Phil, there's a new relationship expert in town.

He's Saudi author and cleric, "Dr." Muhammad Al-'Arifi, who in a remarkable segment broadcast on Saudi and Kuwaiti television in September, counseled young Muslim men on how to treat their wives.

"Admonish them – once, twice, three times, four times, ten times," he advised. "If this doesn't help, refuse to share their beds."

And if that doesn't work?

"Beat them," one of his three young advisees responded.

"That's right," Al-'Arifi said.

Click here to view the segment at MEMRITV.org

He goes on to calmly explain to the young men that hitting their future wives in the face is a no-no.

"Beating in the face is forbidden, even when it comes to animals," he explained. "Even if you want your camel or donkey to start walking, you are not allowed to beat it in the face. If this is true for animals, it is all the more true when it comes to humans. So beatings should be light and not in the face."

His final words of wisdom?

"Woman, it has gone too far. I can't bear it anymore," he tells the men to tell their wives. "If he beats her, the beatings must be light and must not make her face ugly.

"He must beat her where it will not leave marks. He should not beat her on the hand... He should beat her in some places where it will not cause any damage. He should not beat her like he would beat an animal or a child -- slapping them right and left.

"Unfortunately, many husbands beat their wives only when they get mad, and when they start beating, it as if they are punching a wall – they beat with their hands, right and left, and sometimes use their feet. Brother, it is a human being you are beating. This is forbidden. He must not do this."

Of course, I have heard from DiamondHearts that Islamic society is one of peace and that our perspective of how they treat their women is totally unfounded.

~String

MemriTV? Is it a continuous video or a cut and paste job?

Should the Saudis be liberated? Sanctions imposed? A war on terror? Kiss the king?

How do we punish our wives in the West?

How do we punish our wives in the West?
By being smart and not getting married to them to begin with.

MemriTV? Is it a continuous video or a cut and paste job?

Should the Saudis be liberated? Sanctions imposed? A war on terror? Kiss the king?

As usual SAM, you fail to see the point. We've come to expect that from someone who's totally blinded by her hate of the USA.

I'll point it out for you, but then, we know in advance that I'm wasting my time.

Read slowly so you don't miss this point: this isn't about the USA or invading.

Just like when we talk about the price of tea in China, we're not discussing invasion or the big bad wolf (aka, the USA), we're discussing an issue which is totally independent of the USA, invasions, smallpox, herring mating cycles or Cepheid variables: we're discussing the nature of Islamic society and how it treats women.

I know it's tough for you to focus on this, but if you try super-duper hard, you can do it... I know you can. Islam is the discussion... NOT the USA.

(but, I'll adimit, I kinda like your psycho obsession with EVERYTHING bad somehow coming back to the USA)

~String

As usual SAM, you fail to see the point. We've come to expect that from someone who's totally blinded by her hate of the USA.

I'll point it out for you, but then, we know in advance that I'm wasting my time.

Read slowly so you don't miss this point: this isn't about the USA or invading.

Just like when we talk about the price of tea in China, we're not discussing invasion or the big bad wolf (aka, the USA), we're discussing an issue which is totally independent of the USA, invasions, smallpox, herring mating cycles or Cepheid variables: we're discussing the nature of Islamic society and how it treats women.

I know it's tough for you to focus on this, but if you try super-duper hard, you can do it... I know you can. Islam is the discussion... NOT the USA.

(but, I'll adimit, I kinda like your psycho obsession with EVERYTHING bad somehow coming back to the USA)

~String

Perhaps the ideal solution would be to show them you disapprove. Action rather than talk. e.g. human rights abuses equals no business. may have to clean house first before pointing fingers, but hey, all in a good cause, yeah?

PS How many Muslims are Saudis? Do all Muslims beat their wives? Does anyone listen to marriage counselors?

Perhaps the ideal solution would be to show them you disapprove. Action rather than talk. e.g. human rights abuses equals no business. may have to clean house first before pointing fingers, but hey, all in a good cause, yeah?

Indeed, I would agree (with the first part).

The fact that I have problems at home, however, does not deny me the right to point out / discuss other pressing global issues that are otherwise unrelated to my country.

As for having to "clean house first before pointing fingers", does this mean that you are going to bid us adieu and go "clean house" back in India and spare us your daily supply of feculence?

Probably not. So, if you're not going to take your own advice, then why dish it out?

~String

Indeed, I would agree (with the first part).

The fact that I have problems at home, however, does not deny me the right to point out / discuss other pressing global issues that are otherwise unrelated to my country.

As for having to "clean house first before pointing fingers", does this mean that you are going to bid us adieu and go "clean house" back in India and spare us your daily supply of feculence?

Probably not. So, if you're not going to take your own advice, then why dish it out?

~String

I'm all talk, if I were planning to take action, it would behoove me to keep a clean house. e.g. how many gay Republicans will get the next ticket?

Sorta defeats the purpose to act high and mighty when you're in the closet, no?

I'm sure the Saudis have as many opinions about American human rights abuses. No skin off your nose, sah? Why?

PS How many Muslims are Saudis? Do all Muslims beat their wives? Does anyone listen to marriage counselors?

A good question!

Although, I don't doubt for a minute that women die all over the world for all sorts of nasty reasons, it is only in the Muslim world where one finds the total subjugation of women as institutionalized as it is.

I'm willing to bet that there are places here in the USA, China, India and even in Europe where men discuss the finer points of how to discipline their wives which may even include beatings. The big difference is, only in ONE part of the world is the notion of wife beating and how to perform it in an acceptable manner within ISLAM, broadcast on national television without massive outcry from the public. Only in the Islamic world are honor killings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing) a common enough occurrence that the UN has drafted reports on it.

Again, I'm not saying that the USA or other places don't have their issues: but in Islamic societies the practice of female subjugation is so institutionalized that women are all but incapable from seeking redress for their greivences... whereas, at least in places like the West and far East, women have that ability. The part that makes it horrific is that we have to listen to Muslims deflect the issue by pointing out other people's pecadillos.

~String

I'm a Muslim woman and I've worked in Saudi Arabia. I havent noticed any special treatment meted out to women that was not also meted out to men.

The problems in KSA extend more from a kingdom than the religion. Note that in SE Asian societies, Muslims regularly elect women into positions of power.

offcourse beat her it's so simple why didn't I think of that. That 'll stop her smoking :bugeye:

How do we punish our wives in the West?

Take away their credit cards, hide their shoes, replace all of their clothes

with clothes that you like not what she likes. Those are but a few ways to get them excited!

How do we punish our wives in the West?

We sleep with their best friend.:)

Hmmmmm which works better? Let's compare numbers of offspring achieved (since that's the purpose of marriage despite your inevitable delusional flailings), length of marriage, etc. shall we?

I'm sure wife beating does go on, but Memri and Fox are not reliable news outlets, just propaganda machines.

I'm sure wife beating does go on, but Memri and Fox are not reliable news outlets, just propaganda machines.

Fox is a propaganda machine? Pffft. That's rich. So when a news outlet is conservative it's a propaganda machine, but when it's liberal, it's "enlightened and unbiased"!

Well, whatever. Either way, the video clip was conveniently provided and I would like to see the information refuted.

~String

It's not the conservativeness, mostly it's just the lies.

I'm a Muslim woman and I've worked in Saudi Arabia. I havent noticed any special treatment meted out to women that was not also meted out to men.

The problems in KSA extend more from a kingdom than the religion. Note that in SE Asian societies, Muslims regularly elect women into positions of power.

Apparently you didn't notice the fact that women couldn't drive, vote, hold public office, go out in public without a male family member, and NOT wear a hijab. I wonder about your powers of perception.

Oh... and there's the whole legalized wife beating thing.

~String

It's not the conservativeness, mostly it's just the lies.

If you can demonstrate how this particular instance was totally invented, I'll hand you that, but I have yet to see any person refute this instance (or really demonstrate how, beyond the occasional mistake, FOXNews lies).

~String

I'm a Muslim woman and I've worked in Saudi Arabia. I havent noticed any special treatment meted out to women that was not also meted out to men.

Except the forcible head-to-toe covering and beating and shoving little girls back into burning buildings because they we're wearing their coverings. The religious police rounding up minorities. The abuse of domestics. Economic rape and slavery. Stonings of adulterous women.

"I cannot see the signal!"

Adm. Nelson, on holding the spyglass up to his eyepatch

The problems in KSA extend more from a kingdom than the religion.

Right. All those restrictions were pulled out of thin air. I see.

Indeed-- the Kingdom didn't get their ideas from Islam... it's totally INVENTED!

Right. And what with all that quoting of the Koran, the imposing of the Sharia... nah... that's all invented and has absolutely nothing to do with Islam.

~String

Some of you sound like you won't be happy until everywhere is just like the West, as if we don't have problems and injustices of our own.

For the record: The news coverage from FOX is not really bad. For example when the Nato people got rocket attacked they played it over and over. Many people mistaken the editorial parts but editorials wil always be somewhat biased.

Indeed-- the Kingdom didn't get their ideas from Islam... it's totally INVENTED!

Right. And what with all that quoting of the Koran, the imposing of the Sharia... nah... that's all invented and has absolutely nothing to do with Islam.

~String

Why would they need to invent it? They just borrowed it. Nothing new about the oppression of women.

Some of you sound like you won't be happy until everywhere is just like the West, as if we don't have problems and injustices of our own.

Yes... that's what this is about, recreating the world in our image. Sorry... that's too easy of a cop-out. If a society had institutionalized laws subjugating a race (like South Africa did) we'd have embargoes against them (indeed, we did), but when it's women, it just doesn't matter, and why should it-- when you have Muslim women defending the nations who carry out this practice.

~String

Why would they need to invent it? They just borrowed it. Nothing new about the oppression of women.

How do you in good conscious stick up for this stuff? Dont get me wrong, there are women who may prefer Sharia, so maybe you do.

Apparently you didn't notice the fact that women couldn't drive, vote, hold public office, go out in public without a male family member, and NOT wear a hijab. I wonder about your powers of perception.

Oh... and there's the whole legalized wife beating thing.

~String


The assumption being that everyone in Saudi Arabia is under house arrest?

Perhaps they are merely unaware that there is a different way of life or feel uncomfortable with change, considering that their ideas of Western society (at least on television) reflect immorality, poor family structure and unrestrained violence in society?

Yes... that's what this is about, recreating the world in our image. Sorry... that's too easy of a cop-out. If a society had institutionalized laws subjugating a race

What's wrong with subjugating a race?

What's wrong with subjugating women?

Why would they need to invent it? They just borrowed it. Nothing new about the oppression of women.

Nothing new, it's just that it's astounding that people keep making excuses for Muslim discrimination of women by using lame excuses like yours: "Oh, oppression of women has been around for ages." Yeah, well so has racism and antisemitism and whenever you hear of some kid drawing a swastika on a restroom mirror or of some minority who has been discriminated against, it makes the nightly news in 128 countries, but when Muslims beat their women and share tips on how to do it on television, people just brush it off as cultural differences. Rubbish.

~String

How do you in good conscious stick up for this stuff? Dont get me wrong, there are women who may prefer Sharia, so maybe you do.

Nothing wrong with sharia, just outdated in parts like all legal systems are if ignored for a couple of hundred years

As for standing up for it, I've lived there; the families are close and close knit, the women are getting educated (education has been a priority in the kingdom only for the last 30 years but women have already spread out in many professional posts). I think there will be a lot of improvement over the years as people continue to be exposed, but I hope they won't sacrifice the family structure and childhood of their kids as the west has.

Nothing new, it's just that it's astounding that people keep making excuses for Muslim discrimination of women by using lame excuses like yours: "Oh, oppression of women has been around for ages." Yeah, well so has racism and antisemitism and whenever you hear of some kid drawing a swastika on a restroom mirror or of some minority who has been discriminated against, it makes the nightly news in 128 countries, but when Muslims beat their women and share tips on how to do it on television, people just brush it off as cultural differences. Rubbish.

~String
I think social change in a restricted society is bound to be slow. I feel more astonished at the persistence of racism and humans rights abuses in purportedly free societies.

As for standing up for it, I've lived there; the families are close and close knit, the women are getting educated (education has been a priority in the kingdom only for the last 30 years but women have already spread out in many professional posts). I think there will be a lot of improvement over the years as people continue to be exposed, but I hope they won't sacrifice the family structure and childhood of their kids as the west has.

Well, don't blame the entire west on the the Anglo-world's horrific record of parenting. By modernizing and treating people with equality, Muslims will hardly sacrifice their strong family units. Southern and Northern Europe, Japan, Korea, and Southern South American all have very egalitarian societies and still maintain strong family units.

Poor parenting is, unfortunately, the hallmark of the Anglo-American industrial machine, and I won't deny that something has to give.

The two: equality and strong family, are hardly mutually exclusive.

~String

I feel more astonished at the persistence of racism and humans rights abuses in purportedly free societies.

As well you should be... but again, that's dodging the issue. Just because the "West" is imperfect doesn't give Muslims societies a blanket excuse to treat women like property.

~String

Poor parenting is, unfortunately, the hallmark of the Anglo-American industrial machine, and I won't deny that something has to give.

The two: equality and strong family, are hardly mutually exclusive.

~String

The situation in Europe with regards to "family units" is almost the same of that in the us.

Marriages don't last, kids grow up with parents divorcing and remarrying, the stupid and the poor have lots of children and the middle class population is decreasing.

Nothing wrong with sharia, just outdated in parts like all legal systems are if ignored for a couple of hundred years

As for standing up for it, I've lived there; the families are close and close knit, the women are getting educated (education has been a priority in the kingdom only for the last 30 years but women have already spread out in many professional posts). I think there will be a lot of improvement over the years as people continue to be exposed, but I hope they won't sacrifice the family structure and childhood of their kids as the west has.

S.A.M,

Lets just say that to compare a place that is dripping in $$$$$ and where you can go shopping for another BMW every time a little problem happens to a place like Afghanistan are two totally different concepts. You were lucky enough to be part of a certain class, you have not lived through the bad part so for you it is just fine.

You also do not believe in seperation of church and state but that is your right. So you can say nothing wrong with it for you...maybe but???

As well you should be... but again, that's dodging the issue. Just because the "West" is imperfect doesn't give Muslims societies a blanket excuse to treat women like property.

~String

And just because Muslim societies are different is a reason for them to be liberated like the West?

S.A.M,

Lets just say that to compare a place that is dripping in $$$$$ and where you can go shopping for another BMW every time a little problem happens to a place like Afghanistan are two totally different concepts. You were lucky enough to be part of a certain class, you have not lived through the bad part so for you it is just fine.

You also do not believe in seperation of church and state but that is your right. So you can say nothing wrong with it for you...maybe but???

Is this English?

Is this English?

What didn't you understand? You can re-write it and post the corrections.:)

Well, don't blame the entire west on the the Anglo-world's horrific record of parenting. By modernizing and treating people with equality, Muslims will hardly sacrifice their strong family units. Southern and Northern Europe, Japan, Korea, and Southern South American all have very egalitarian societies and still maintain strong family units.

Poor parenting is, unfortunately, the hallmark of the Anglo-American industrial machine, and I won't deny that something has to give.

The two: equality and strong family, are hardly mutually exclusive.

~String

You're assuming that family dynamics in these other countries are secular.

Meanwhile, M. Bin Laden could have as many as 1400 offspring in just three generations.

And just because Muslim societies are different is a reason for them to be liberated like the West?

You're speaking in hyperbole SAM. Stop exaggerating.

The point is: you're making excuses for Islamic tolerance of institutionalized gender bias. It's wrong. The UN has stated that it's wrong, any intelligent person can see that gender bias is wrong, and yet Muslim societies keep getting a pass on this issue.

~String

any intelligent person can see that gender bias is wrong

Why is it wrong?

You're speaking in hyperbole SAM. Stop exaggerating.

The point is: you're making excuses for Islamic tolerance of institutionalized gender bias. It's wrong. The UN has stated that it's wrong, any intelligent person can see that gender bias is wrong, and yet Muslim societies keep getting a pass on this issue.

~String

And you're assuming that Saudi Arabia is a role model. The rise of Wahabbism is irectly linked to the support given to the Ministry of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. By the king.

Saudis have always been pariahs in the Muslim world for their backwardness, if they are popular today, you need to look closer to home for the reason.

You're assuming that family dynamics in these other countries are secular.

I am. They are.

I can tell you for certain that you don't get much more secular than Europe and Southern South America (Chile & Argentina). I would know-- I have lived there, been there, studied the history, culture & languages from there, and dated men from there.

In fact, in Spain, I've never seen so many church hating people in my life... and yet, they have strong family bonds.

Also, having religion doesn't necessarily mean a society has to be intolerant. I will grant some Islamic societies the kudos for their [gulp] liberalism: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Albania, Malaysia and Indonesia all do pretty well by there women. It's just that in the heart of the Muslim world you have this institutionalized sexism that the purveyors of which steadfastly claim is demanded by Islam. That's a pretty big deal, especially in societies that are run by Sharia in one form or another.

~String

Why is it wrong?

Shleeeb, I'm not going to even bother debating you on this. If we can't agree that racism and sexism are wrong, then we live in different dimensions-- I'm okay with that.

~String

I am. They are.

I can tell you for certain that you don't get much more secular than Europe and Southern South America (Chile & Argentina). I would know-- I have lived there, been there, studied the history, culture & languages from there, and dated men from there.

In fact, in Spain, I've never seen so many church hating people in my life... and yet, they have strong family bonds.

Also, having religion doesn't necessarily mean a society has to be intolerant. I will grant some Islamic societies the kudos for their [gulp] liberalism: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Albania, Malaysia and Indonesia all do pretty well by there women. It's just that in the heart of the Muslim world you have this institutionalized sexism that the purveyors of which steadfastly claim is demanded by Islam. That's a pretty big deal, especially in societies that are run by Sharia in one form or another.

~String

These are the soceities that in the past have been heavily influenced by Christianity at its worst. Islam per se has no gender bias toward women. The Sauds built walls in Mecca and are trying to segregate the women there; it was never a part of the history.

And just because Muslim societies are different is a reason for them to be liberated like the West?

"Different" meaning intolerant?

These are the soceities that in the past have been heavily influenced by Christianity at its worst. Islam per se has no gender bias toward women.

Q 4: 11
Q 4: 34

Misdirection, Sam?

Q 4: 11
Q 4: 34

Misdirection, Sam?

Please spare me your Islamic education.

These are the societies that in the past have been heavily influenced by Christianity at its worst.

Are you referring to the current Christian societies (Europe & S.America) or the Muslim ones I was discussing (Bos.Hertz, Albania, etc), or all?

Look, you won't ever hear me defend the actions of Christianity past-- I'm agnostic and I think that the Catholic church has plenty of blood on its hands. But Christianity present is a different thing and so are the societies that practice it.

If you are referring to the Muslim societies, then I don't know what you're talking about, unless you are going so far in the past that the entire point becomes blurred, which, I suspect, is your tactic-as-usual.

Islam per se has no gender bias toward women.

And yet there's all that obvious and pesky sexism throughout Muslim societies that Imams and laymen alike keep saying is demeaned by Allah. Nice try.

~String

Please spare me your Islamic education.

Yes... God (or Allah) forbid that someone point out information to you that you previously denied.

~String

Shleeeb, I'm not going to even bother debating you on this. If we can't agree that racism and sexism are wrong, then we live in different dimensions-- I'm okay with that.

~String

It's not about agreeing. I want you to tell me why it's wrong.

Please spare me your Islamic education.

But of course. Now if only the Saudis would spare theirs.

It's not about agreeing. I want you to tell me why it's wrong.

Golden Rule; do unto others; shut up, schlee.

Yes... God (or Allah) forbid that someone point out information to you that you previously denied.

~String

What information? He's talking out of his arse, picking out part of a verse which means nothing.

Golden Rule; do unto others; shut up, schlee.

Make me, mantits.

Are you referring to the current Christian societies (Europe & S.America) or the Muslim ones I was discussing (Bos.Hertz, Albania, etc), or all?

Look, you won't ever hear me defend the actions of Christianity past-- I'm agnostic and I think that the Catholic church has plenty of blood on its hands. But Christianity present is a different thing and so are the societies that practice it.

If you are referring to the Muslim societies, then I don't know what you're talking about, unless you are going so far in the past that the entire point becomes blurred, which, I suspect, is your tactic-as-usual.



And yet there's all that obvious and pesky sexism throughout Muslim societies that Imams and laymen alike keep saying is demeaned by Allah. Nice try.

~String

And what? I see a decadent society, dedicated to obesity and cancer, that gets its jollies from attacking smaller defenseless nations. Lack of purpose, lack of meaning, aimed only at self gratification at the expense of all others?

Maybe the Muslim societies have a long way to go, but its lack of opportunity and education that's holding them back, not an innate desire for backwardness. Remember, they wanted their independence in 1920. Too bad all the people who are pointing fingers now, are the same people who have had a vested interest in keeping them subjugated.

[moderator hat on]

Both of you-- stop. I'll delete your offending posts and boot you out of the forum.

Debate the issue, not each other.

~String

[moderator hat off]

So basucally we can infer that S.A.M and G. F. Schleebenhorst are in agreement.

And if that doesn't work?

"Beat them," one of his three young advisees responded.

"That's right," Al-'Arifi said.

Maybe the Muslim societies have a long way to go, but its lack of opportunity and education that's holding them back, not an innate desire for backwardness. Remember, they wanted their independence in 1920. Too bad all the people who are pointing fingers now, are the same people who have had a vested interest in keeping them subjugated.

The Saudis are subjugated by whom? Why is there a lack of education or oppertunity? There is no lack of money.

So basucally we can infer that S.A.M and G. F. Schleebenhorst are in agreement.

Ever watch Fox news? :rolleyes:

I've met Saudi couples; the ones with better education are more considerate of each other, the ones with less education less so. Its not rocket science.

All I want is for some people to think objectively. They see our culture from their point of view, and we see theirs from our point of view.

None of you can try to see it from a completely neutral point of view, and that makes each side as bad as the other.

It's not about agreeing. I want you to tell me why it's wrong.

It's wrong to treat any human being in any manner than you would like to be treated.

And what? I see a decadent society, dedicated to obesity and cancer, that gets its jollies from attacking smaller defenseless nations. Lack of purpose, lack of meaning, aimed only at self gratification at the expense of all others?

Oh my god, you have ADD.

SAM, this isn't about the USA or the west.

Yes, the west has HUGE issues, none of which means that if the ME / Islam modernizes, it (all those nasty things) will happen to them. Decadence always happens when a society becomes rich-- it's part of being human and is unavoidable in the presence of wealth. None of this means, however, that Islam should not be held accountable for treating its citizens (like, oh 50% of their citizens) with such disregard.

Maybe the Muslim societies have a long way to go, but its lack of opportunity and education that's holding them back, not an innate desire for backwardness. Remember, they wanted their independence in 1920. Too bad all the people who are pointing fingers now, are the same people who have had a vested interest in keeping them subjugated.

Yes... all those poor Muslim societies that are currently subjugated by the USA and the trillions of petrodollars being pumped into them by the west. It's always the cry of the person who's been caught red handed: It's not my fault, It's... it's... it's... it's America's fault!
~String

It's wrong to treat any human being in any manner than you would like to be treated.

....yes, but why is that? Is that just what you have been told or have you thought any deeper than just "It is wrong" because that is far too vague and I think it would be better if you experimented in a little objective thinking.

....yes, but why is that? Is that just what you have been told or have you thought any deeper than just "It is wrong" because that is far too vague and I think it would be better if you experimented in a little objective thinking.

Schleeb, start a new thread in the philosophy forum if you want to debate the "why". I'll even go there and do it for you if it makes you happy. That is not the discussion here.

~String

Ever watch Fox news? :rolleyes:

I've met Saudi couples; the ones with better education are more considerate of each other, the ones with less education less so. Its not rocket science.

Would you have traded places with an Afghan woman under the Taliban?:shrug: I am not even convinced this is the same S.A.M.

....yes, but why is that? Is that just what you have been told or have you thought any deeper than just "It is wrong" because that is far too vague and I think it would be better if you experimented in a little objective thinking.

Schleeb, start a new thread in the philosophy forum if you want to debate the "why". I'll even go there and do it for you if it makes you happy. That is not the discussion here.

~String

(Oh-- and I've thought about it, seen it, experienced it, and doled it out, that's where my thoughts come from; debate it more here: Why is it wrong to discriminate? (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1610144#post1610144))

Would you have traded places with an Afghan woman under the Taliban?:shrug: I am not even convinced this is the same S.A.M.

I'm guessing the Taliban is looking a lot better than NATO these days.

You'd be guessing wrong. Polls support the NATO stay in Afghanistan.

I'm guessing the Taliban is looking a lot better than NATO these days.

Well, except for all that pesky free medicine, education for girls, and if you are a woman who can actually leave her house without getting beaten for her shoes squeaking.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that it was ever "good" there, it wasn't. There has been clan violence for Milena-- that's it's going on now to this degree is only a sign that there isn't an oppressive government that is burning people on pyres to quell the fighting.

I know this isn't good enough for you SAM and that the USA should be able to build a Jeffersonian democracy in six years, but it takes time... and blood.

~String

Of course they do. :rolleyes:

I hear the Iraqis are ecstatic at the occupation and Iran is throwing the red carpet.

Everyone loves a liberation

I'm guessing the Taliban is looking a lot better than NATO these days.

OK, that is your guess. You never actually lived there under Sharia\Taliban but you say it was just fine for the women there. :confused:

8- Whipping of women in public for having non-covered ankles.

http://www.rawa.org/rules.htm

Well, except for all that pesky free medicine, education for girls, and if you are a woman who can actually leave her house without getting beaten for her shoes squeaking.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that it was ever "good" there, it wasn't. There has been clan violence for Milena-- that's it's going on now to this degree is only a sign that there isn't an oppressive government that is burning people on pyres to quell the fighting.

I know this isn't good enough for you SAM and that the USA should be able to build a Jeffersonian democracy in six years, but it takes time... and blood.

~String

Anything beats being bombed out of existence.

OK, that is your guess. You never actually lived there under Sharia\Taliban but you say it was just fine for the women there. :confused:



http://www.rawa.org/rules.htm

Try looking up Afghanistan before US and Soviet intervention.

Of course they do. :rolleyes:

I hear the Iraqis are ecstatic at the occupation and Iran is throwing the red carpet.

Everyone loves a liberation

Apparently some people do.

What now, Sam?

Education isn't a right, it's a privilege.
Equal treatment isn't a right, it's a privilege.
Emancipation isn't a right, it's a privilege.

Try looking up Afghanistan before US intervention.

i just linked to it.

Anything beats being bombed out of existence.

Oh... I forgot... your "addiction" to hyperbole. Yeah...

Lemme check the population of Afghanistan...

One moment...

The 1979 census put the Afghan pop at: 15,551,358.
The 1993 population estimate was: 17,691,000.
The 2000 population estimate was: 25,838,797.
And the most recent population estimate was: 31,889,923.

Shit!! What do they put in those bombs? Fertilizer! At this rate we'll be crawling with pesky Afghani's by the decade's end!

~String

I modified your statement, G.F., so as to be more consistent with your worldview.

Education isn't right.
Equal treatment isn't right.
Emancipation isn't right.

Oh... I forgot... your "addiction" to hyperbole. Yeah...

Lemme check the population of Afghanistan...

One moment...

The 1979 census put the Afghan pop at: 15,551,358.
The 1993 population estimate was: 17,691,000.
The 2000 population estimate was: 25,838,797.
And the most recent population estimate was: 31,889,923.

Shit!! What do they put in those bombs? Fertilizer! At this rate we'll be crawling with pesky Afghani's by the decade's end!

~String

That should make up for all the people killed. Any figures for mortality? Anyone counting?

I modified your statement, G.F., so as to be more consistent with your worldview.

Stop making assumptions.

i just linked to it.

This?

As part of a Cold War strategy, in 1979 the United States government (under President Jimmy Carter and National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski) began to covertly fund and train anti-government Mujahideen forces through the Pakistani secret service known as Inter Services Intelligence (ISI). In order to bolster the local Communist forces, the Soviet Union—citing the 1978 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness that had been signed between the two countries—intervened on December 24, 1979. Over 100,000 Soviet troops took part in the invasion, who were backed by another 100,000 and plus pro-communist forces of Afghanistan. The Soviet occupation resulted in the killings of at least 600,000 to 2 million Afghan civilians. Over 5 million Afghans fled their country to Pakistan, Iran and other parts of the world. Faced with mounting international pressure and great number of casualties on both sides, the Soviets withdrew in 1989.

The Soviet withdrawal from the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan was seen as an ideological victory in the US, which had backed the Mujahideen through three US presidential administrations in order to counter Soviet influence in the vicinity of the oil-rich Persian Gulf.

Following the removal of the Soviet forces, the US and its allies lost interest in Afghanistan and did little to help rebuild the war-ravaged country or influence events there. The USSR continued to support President Najibullah (former head of the Afghan secret service, KHAD) until 1992 when new Russian government refused to sell oil products to Najibullah regime.[50]

And the most recent population estimate was: 31,889,923.

Shit!! What do they put in those bombs? Fertilizer! At this rate we'll be crawling with pesky Afghani's by the decade's end!

~String

They probably just forgot to clean up all the corpses and accidentally counted those too.

This?

No S.A.M NOT that at all. Are you saying you supported the Soviet invasion? or did yuou support the 'FREEDOM FIGHTERS' the U.S supported.

That should make up for all the people killed. Any figures for mortality? Anyone counting?

Nice try-- but that, again, wasn't your point. You made a blatant statement about being bombed out of existence. You want to discuss bombing casualties, then we can take it across the ocean and talk about what prompted that bombing. Sorry, the debate ain't going down that path.

The Afghani's are NOT being bombed out of existence, contrary to your usually pointless statements.

~String

Let's look at the facts here - most of the 9/11 bombers were Saudi. This thread is about brutal treatment of Saudi women in the Saudi regime. How many american bombs have fallen on Saudi Arabia?

Nice try-- but that, again, wasn't your point. You made a blatant statement about being bombed out of existence. You want to discuss bombing casualties, then we can take it across the ocean and talk about what prompted that bombing. Sorry, the debate ain't going down that path.

The Afghani's are NOT being bombed out of existence, contrary to your usually pointless statements.

~String

The ones who died are. Besides higher birth in wartime is not an anomaly. There are more than 5 million refugees out of Afghanistan.

No S.A.M NOT that at all. Are you saying you supported the Soviet invasion? or did yuou support the 'FREEDOM FIGHTERS' the U.S supported.

You mean you're not cheering for the Islamic fundamentalists the US supported?

I'm curious, Sam: what was the preferable path to take with the Taliban, instead of invasion?

How many American bombs have fallen on Saudi Arabia?

Perhaps not enough. Perhaps, none should.

You won't hear me support regime change for pesky "democracy" reasons-- I'm all for doing it for strategic reasons. Iraq should have been left to the Iraqi's and allowed to developer nukes (just like we did Pakistan to no ill effect). We should have let Saddam keep Kuwait. They would have never invaded Saudi Arabia or Iran again, no matter how strong they got (both nations were / have been arming themselves for ages to thwart an Iraqi attack). The US should have kept making nice-nice with Saddam and then just bought his oil. US troops should have never been sent to the Middle East in 1992. Who cares if another Middle Eastern emirate goes out of existence? What better nation to snuff them out than a moderate, pro-American dictatorship that kept it's extremists in line.

The US has suffered for its shortsightedness, there's no doubt about that.

~String

I'm curious, Sam: what was the preferable path to take with the Taliban, instead of invasion?

How about you know take one of their offers?

1. give evidence of OBL's involvement for extradition
2. hold an Islamic trial in Afghanistan and prosecute him
3. give OBL over to a third party for trial

Nah, much easier to bomb civilians.

Right?

You mean you're not cheering for the Islamic fundamentalists the US supported?

So you dont belive that Islamic fundamentalism is good? You already stated Sharia is fine.

So you dont belive that Islamic fundamentalism is good? You already stated Sharia is fine.

Get a clue.:bugeye:

How about you know take one of their offers?

1. give evidence of OBL's involvement
2. hold an Islamic trial in Afghanistan and prosecute him
3. give OBL over to a third party for trial

Nah, much easier to bomb civilians.

Right?

Are you serious?

Perhaps not enough. Perhaps, none should.

You won't hear me support regime change for pesky "democracy" reasons-- I'm all for doing it for strategic reasons. Iraq should have been left to the Iraqi's and allowed to developer nukes (just like we did Pakistan to no ill effect). We should have let Saddam keep Kuwait. They would have never invaded Saudi Arabia or Iran again, no matter how strong they got (both nations were / have been arming themselves for ages to thwart an Iraqi attack). The US should have kept making nice-nice with Saddam and then just bought his oil. US troops should have never been sent to the Middle East in 1992. Who cares if another Middle Eastern emirate goes out of existence? What better nation to snuff them out than a moderate, pro-American dictatorship that kept it's extremists in line.

The US has suffered for its shortsightedness, there's no doubt about that.

~String


An interesting take on things. You're right....amongst all the other Middle Eastern countries Iraq was moderate and fairly modern apart from its political regime. At the time of the US invasion there were female doctors, professionals etc. and not one of them was being made to wear a burkha, and yet the most extreme, intolerant, christian-hating regime is best friends with the USA for the simple reason that they'll play ball, sell oil only in dollars and cap the oil supply when the dollar suffers.

Get a clue.:bugeye:

Cant you just answer the questions? i am being cordial.

Are you serious?

Was it worth it?



"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

How many dead for this farce?

Too many.

An interesting take on things. You're right....amongst all the other Middle Eastern countries Iraq was moderate and fairly modern apart from its political regime. At the time of the US invasion there were female doctors, professionals etc. and not one of them was being made to wear a burkha, and yet the most extreme, intolerant, Christian-hating regime is best friends with the USA for the simple reason that they'll play ball, sell oil only in dollars and cap the oil supply when the dollar suffers.

The sad thing is, for all his horrible nature, Saddam WAS willing to play ball with the USA. Who do you think he would have sold his oil to? He was OUR ally in the ME. There is some evidence to show that he even warned the USA that he was going to take Kuwait and that oil ("the spice must flow") would have been delivered all the same. I have seen no evidence to contradict this point: Saddam then, was favorable to anything going on now.

Bush #1's biggest blunder was to get the US involved in nation building in the ME... and now his idiotic son has carried on his legacy with destructive results.

What was to hate about Iraq? It was the ONLY Middle Eastern nation (besides Israel) that allowed Christian missionaries, that guaranteed freedom of religion, that didn't kow-tow to the imams, that was WESTERNIZING at a rapid pace. The only reason why it wanted Kuwait was to keep funding this industrialization. Hell, we would have had better luck exporting "freedom" to the ME if we would have left Saddam in place. People talk of "rape rooms" by his sons, well, that's for the IRAQI's to deal with... but now, it has become yet another American problem.

Bunch of crap.

~String

Afghanistan had a chance:

In the 1960s foreign-educated scholars populated the campus, exposing the new Afghan generation to new topics such as communism, feminism and capitalism. Students influenced during this era include Ahmed Shah Massoud, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Dr. Faiz Ahmad, and Saydal Sokhandan.

Many different political groups were influenced in the University such as Khaliqis, Parchamis, Sholayees, Ikhwanies etc.

In the 1950s and 60s the university was one of the finest institutions of its kind in Asia, the intellectual heart of the country and the pride of Afghanistan.[1]

Iraq had a chance, Iran had a chance.

When strategic international game playing narrows the opportunities available to people and supports despotism, putting the blame on the people suppressed under these measures is a shameful tactic.

But SAM. THEN SADDAM came into power. Do you thinh U.S put him there too? At some point you have to be realistic. And please dont try that 'but U.S supported him' that is just lame.

But SAM. THEN SADDAM came into power. Do you thinh U.S put him there too? At some point you have to be realistic.

How do you think Saddam came into power?

By killing the person in front of him. Thats not what i think, isnt it common knowledge?

By killing the person in front of him.

He had friends in high places

http://globalpolicy.igc.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm

US intelligence helped Saddam’s Ba`ath Party seize power for the first time in 1963. Evidence suggests that Saddam was on the CIA payroll as early as 1959, when he participated in a failed assassination attempt against Iraqi strongman Abd al-Karim Qassem.

Boy everyone is conveniently "on the payroll". Was Hitler and Julius Caesar on the payroll too. I dont see the purpose of adding to U.S mythology.

Boy everyone is conveniently "on the payroll". Was Hitler and Julius Caesar on the payroll too.

Don't know about Cesar but the Nazi party? :p

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html

That is entirely different than the last few posts. You get an A for effort though.

That is entirely different than the last few posts. You get an A for effort though.

Heh, sadly, its upto the US now to clean up this mess, no one else can or will touch it. Unfortunately, Americans have never been nation builders.

I'm a Muslim woman and I've worked in Saudi Arabia. I havent noticed any special treatment meted out to women that was not also meted out to men.



Really? Unless you're Native to some other Arab country like Yemen you woulda noticed.



Taking the Gender Apartheid Tour in Saudi Arabia
03/07/05
Rita Henley Jensen, editor in chief

JEDDAH, Saudi Arabia (WOMENSENEWS)--Jeddah, I was told, is the more liberal place in the kingdom, a little like the San Francisco of this nation. Said to be more tolerant than elsewhere because it is, and has been for 1,400 years, the entry point for the millions of travelers each year in their annual pilgrimage to Mecca, the holiest place in Islam.

Yet, as I studied my guidebook in anticipation of my first journey here, I duly noted the warning that Saudi Arabia was perhaps the most difficult place on the globe for women to travel alone and noted the guide made no mention of any exceptions.

Women on Saudi soil must have a husband or male relative as an escort. We are not allowed to drive. When sight-seeing we must wear a full-length black gown known as an abaya. During Saudi Arabia's first elections, held the week before my arrival, women were NOT permitted to vote or Run for office.
[....]
I was also as a single woman accustomed to the freedom of New York City, where I can move about unfettered by gender restrictions, even feeling safe on the city's subway late at night. In Saudi Arabia I would lose all that and I didn't know how my internal navigation would cope.
[...]
'Private Beach' Instead of Pool

Before I left, I learned that even though I would stay at the Hilton Hotel and attend a conference on the hotel's premises that was sponsored by General Motors--two U.S. based companies barred by law from practicing gender bias on their home turf--I would not be permitted to use the hotel's pool or athletic facilities.

I packed my swimsuit anyway, aware that there were "private beaches" where Western women were permitted to swim in the Red Sea...

....At breakfast, I learned that the expansive hotel dining area was reserved for men.
Women were relegated to the smaller "family area," that was blocked from public view.

That was when I noticed that ALL the hotel employees I had seen so far--from the greeters, bellstaff, security guards, registration clerks, tenders of the breakfast buffet--were MALE, a fact that remained true throughout my stay. NOT a single female employee.

After breakfast, I decided to "test the waters" on swimming. The concierge informed me about the shuttles to the "private beach" a half-hour's drive away. They left at 9 a.m. and noon and brought guests back at 3 and at 5. No possibility of returning at noon or going at 3; that I would have to handle at my own expense.

I set out at 9 and, at the beach, I quickly shed my black Hilton-supplied abaya, thinking how its color absorbs the heat, while the white robes that most men wear reflects it.

.....the beach was like any facility designed for the exclusive use of those with Lesser Status. The faded, stained condition of it all caused spiffy visions of the Hilton pool to dance resentfully in my head.

On my one day of sightseeing I took in the country's famous wealth--glittering shopping malls and immense, gated mansions--from the backseat of a Budget rental car.
I also saw slums, as well as female beggars, covered in their veils and black abayas, occasionally carrying a tiny infant wrapped in a colorful scarf.

As we passed Jeddah's one public square our guide pointed out the site where the Public Beheadings take place on Fridays.

A female surgeon, a Jeddah resident originally from Bahrain, seated next to me, complained Bitterly about the Religious Police who carry Sticks to Chastise Women in public who they deem as not properly covered by their abayas and veils, much like the Taliban in Afghanistan.

[....]
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2212/context/ourdailylives

"Never Noticed"? 5 Years?
Just NOT credible.

How about you know take one of their offers?

1. give evidence of OBL's involvement for extradition
2. hold an Islamic trial in Afghanistan and prosecute him
3. give OBL over to a third party for trial

:rolleyes:

First off: OBL was where, exactly?

Second: the Taliban required elimination. Repressive swine. Were they going to lay down their arms and their ideology because they were nicely asked?


Nah, much easier to bomb civilians.

Right?

Well, although I don't agree with your statement, there's various jihadi groups who certainly would. You may rest yourself contented.

I assume you can point to this deliberate carpet-bombing?


Heh, sadly, its upto the US now to clean up this mess, no one else can or will touch it. Unfortunately, Americans have never been nation builders.

Well, other than Germany, Japan, Austria, Italy and South Korea and now Afghanistan, I suppose not. :shrug:

:rolleyes:

First off: OBL was where, exactly?

Second: the Taliban required elimination. Repressive swine. Were they going to lay down their arms and their ideology because they were nicely asked?




Well, although I don't agree with your statement, there's various jihadi groups who certainly would. You may rest yourself contented.

I assume you can point to this deliberate carpet-bombing?




Well, other than Germany, Japan, Austria, Italy and South Korea and now Afghanistan, I suppose not. :


IOW, it was all just another excuse for a supposed regime change. There never was any intention to catch OBL, hence the complete disinterest in the Talibans offers; another liberation by force.

http://www.google.com/search?q=taliban+offer+OSama+US&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

http://books.google.com/books?id=Q3o2BaNiJksC&dq=overthrow&pg=PP1&ots=P6PY5XtVT3&sig=rjZgDx6V4u17Xo3tYp58jLafCvI&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fq%3Doverthrow%26ie%3Dutf-8%26oe%3Dutf-8%26aq%3Dt%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26client%3Dfirefox-a&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail

NATO: make or break over Afghanistan

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071024/nato_afghanistan_071024/20071024?hub=CTVNewsAt11

Ah! We have slipped across the Cyclopean veil into the hidden realm of Supposition. Tread carefully, else the Monster of Fact swallow you up.

Well, probably. I mean, we haven't seen any so far, but we take it they're there.

Ah! We have slipped across the Cyclopean veil into the hidden realm of Supposition. Tread carefully, else the Monster of Fact swallow you up.

Well, probably. I mean, we haven't seen any so far, but we take it they're there.

Not surprising when an attack by a group of yet to be officially acknowledged terrorists warrants an attack on two countries that have nothing to do with it for the purpose of ummm liberalisation? (when said unacknowledged terrorists were supposedly already hyperliberalised with the alcohol and women)

You're already through the looking glass.

And it's looking pretty good for the Afghanis.

(Funnily enough...they agree! :eek: The idolaters!)

*brushes off hat, leaves*

And it's looking pretty good for the Afghanis.

(Funnily enough...they agree! :eek: The idolaters!)

*brushes off hat, leaves*

Reading faux news meant to keep the pilgrims happy again? dare to explore the realms of reality?

NATO general sees potential for failure in Afghanistan
Peter O'Neil, CanWest Europe correspondent, CanWest News Service
Published: Thursday, November 01, 2007

LONDON -- One of Britain's most outspoken military officers issued stark warnings about the potential for failure in Afghanistan at a forum hosted by the Canadian high commission Thursday.




Infighting among NATO members snarls Afghan mission, ex-commander says

November 2, 2007 at 4:35 AM EDT

LONDON — Chaos and competing goals among NATO nations involved in Afghanistan are preventing progress there, according to the British general who commanded the Afghan mission until February.

Neither of those isolated, unlinked and possibly out-of-context headlines refers to Afghani attitudes.

We are not allowed to drive.

That made me LOL.

Fox is a propaganda machine? Pffft. That's rich. So when a news outlet is conservative it's a propaganda machine, but when it's liberal, it's "enlightened and unbiased"!

Well, whatever. Either way, the video clip was conveniently provided and I would like to see the information refuted.

~String

fox is a propanganda network. there are conservative news outlets that aren't. the wall street journal pre murdoch other than its ediorial pages for example

Neither of those isolated, unlinked and possibly out-of-context headlines refers to Afghani attitudes.

It does rather, the lack of success is directly related to the people's perception of excessive use of force and high civilian deaths. Would you, in their position, be willing to sacrifice your family for an illusory freedom?

'Sacrifice' of family for an 'illusory' freedom from vicious oppression? Of course, that's not really the way it works, as you know. This isn't Abraham and his kid, you understand. There is such a thing as probability and incidence.

As for the lack of success, strangely...and I just can't understand this...they seem most happy about the Yanks and most worried about the Taliban. How odd! Their positivity is coming down a bit, of course: because the Taliban won't curl up and die.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2007/10/18/afghan-poll.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=2702516&page=1
http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1363276

Methinks your "illusory freedom" comment is grounded in a sentiment that dare not speak its name.

We sleep with their best friend.:)

But if the little dears didn't brag on our prowess, the best friend wouldn't be interested:D