Women under attack in Iraq, Afghanistan

hippiemom

dg1979us wrote:

She is right, but its not really the same topic as the original post. The poor treatment of women didnt start under Bush, and if Bush didnt support the taliban it doesnt mean that women would have been treated any better. I certainly agree that Bush shouldnt be dealing with the Taliban, but I really dont see what that has to do with this discussion. Many Muslim nations are living in the 14th century and it isnt because of Bush, and it started well before Bush.

You're right, the thread is totally derailed. I didn't respond to the initial baiting by jlew24asu, trying to turn it into yet another Bush thread, but I just couldn't let it pass when he tried to insinuate that the current aministration never supported the Taliban, because that's preposterous.

hippiemom

cincybearcat wrote:

BUsh and any connection with the Taliban has absolutely 100% nothing to do with women being targets in these countries.

It happened long before Bush and hopefully it will end soon.

Hippiemom is 100% wrong about this being important in this context. But that's just my opinion.

I agree with you. I wasn't arguing in this context, just trying to correct a misrepresentation of the facts.

dg1979us

SoonForgotten2 wrote:

I'm not disagreeing with that at all. It's just that this administration has so, so much to answer for and I cannot believe how many people still refuse to open their eyes to such obvious FACTS. That being said, EVRYONE in Iraq is a target anyway- man, woman, child, muslin, christian, athiest, cat, dog, sand dunes, etc.

I absolutely agree they have a lot to answer for, but they dont have to answer for everything, because everything isnt their fault. Im sorry but when a thread about how Muslim women are treated turns into posting articles about Bush that have nothing to do with the topic, then to me it looks like a lack of concern for the issue at hand, which is the mistreatment of women. The abuses and oppressions that many of these Muslim nations force upon their societies are reprehensible, and go far beyond Bush. Bush is a terrible leader there is no question, but not every world problem lays at this feet.

dg1979us

hippiemom wrote:

You're right, the thread is totally derailed. I didn't respond to the initial baiting by jlew24asu, trying to turn it into yet another Bush thread, but I just couldn't let it pass when he tried to insinuate that the current aministration never supported the Taliban, because that's preposterous.

Actually I meant to say, that in fairness to you, that you werent first one to bring up Bush. I do realize that.

SoonForgotten2

dg1979us wrote:

I absolutely agree they have a lot to answer for, but they dont have to answer for everything, because everything isnt their fault. Im sorry but when a thread about how Muslim women are treated turns into posting articles about Bush that have nothing to do with the topic, then to me it looks like a lack of concern for the issue at hand, which is the mistreatment of women. The abuses and oppressions that many of these Muslim nations force upon their societies are reprehensible, and go far beyond Bush. Bush is a terrible leader there is no question, but not every world problem lays at this feet.

That's fine. Hippiemom already explained how this topic came up. As for muslim countries and such, I really think this needs to be left to said countries. It's difficult enough for western countries to find an agreeable way to deal with Islam within their own countries. Living in London, i know this first hand- there aren't clear solutions to such drastic cultural differences. For there to be any true and meaningful change, it must come from within the group in question. No one from the outside can force that. Even influencing it can be very problematic minefield.

jlew24asu

hippiemom wrote:

Is there no point beyond which you won't continue to support this administration? Are you that blindly loyal, or do you just not read very well?

They didn't help to "fight the war on drugs," whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean in the first place. They announced that opium growing was against the will of god. They needed $43 million for that?

In giving that and other aid, this administration made us the leading financial backers of a regime that treated 50% of it's population in a way that would get you jailed in any civilized nation. In addition, they harbored a terrorist that had already attacked the United States. You remember, don't you? The embassay attacks that republicans endlessly harp about, complaining that Clinton did nothing? Well Bush did WORSE than nothing, he actually SUPPORTED these people!

I read very well thank you. I dont agree that bush's administration gave 43 million to the taliban. it was actually colin powell and the dept of state who was behind that. it was a gift for stopping the growing of opium. this was before 9/11, like I said. the world was a very different place before that happened.

am I complaining that clinton did nothing? no. should he have done much more? yes.

Vedderlution_Baby

jlew24asu wrote:

I read very well thank you. I dont agree that bush's administration gave 43 million to the taliban. it was actually colin powell and the dept of state who was behind that. it was a gift for stopping the growing of opium. this was before 9/11, like I said. the world was a very different place before that happened.

Huh? how can Colin powel and the d.o.s just give the taliban 43 million dollars without the administration knowing about it? Doesn't someone have to sign off on shit like that? Or did I completely misunderstand you?

jlew24asu

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

Huh? how can Colin powel and the d.o.s just give the taliban 43 million dollars without the administration knowing about it? Doesn't someone have to sign off on shit like that? Or did I completely misunderstand you?

I didnt say the administration didnt know about it. the state dept doesnt need to ask bush to give a reward for stopping the growth of opium.

cincybearcat

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

Huh? how can Colin powel and the d.o.s just give the taliban 43 million dollars without the administration knowing about it? Doesn't someone have to sign off on shit like that? Or did I completely misunderstand you?

here's the thing with real life, businesses, and yes the government (a nig business)...a department gets a budget at the beginning of the year. The budget is to cover expenses in certain categories. They use the $ how they see fit and often does nto require any additional approval unless they are requesting more $...or if it reaches a certain level of spending. And when you are the government, $43 million is a drop in the bucket.

hippiemom

jlew24asu wrote:

I read very well thank you. I dont agree that bush's administration gave 43 million to the taliban. it was actually colin powell and the dept of state who was behind that. it was a gift for stopping the growing of opium. this was before 9/11, like I said. the world was a very different place before that happened.

am I complaining that clinton did nothing? no. should he have done much more? yes.

Who hires the Secretary of State? Who has the power to fire him or her? Who does the secretary answer to? The State Department is PART OF the administration, for heaven's sake! If Colin Powell had any autonomy at all, you can bet this whole Iraq mess would have been handled a lot differently. He did his boss' bidding like a good little soldier.

jlew24asu

hippiemom wrote:

Who hires the Secretary of State? Who has the power to fire him or her? Who does the secretary answer to? The State Department is PART OF the administration, for heaven's sake! If Colin Powell had any autonomy at all, you can bet this whole Iraq mess would have been handled a lot differently. He did his boss' bidding like a good little soldier.

the state dept doesnt ask permission for every little thing it does. the state dept is given a budget of over 9 billion. 43 million is nothing. did bush even know about this transation? who knows? do I agree with it? no

when did I say the state dept is part of the administration? I didnt for heavens sake. your first 4 questions of so irrelvant. again, its just your condesending way for talking to someone you dont agree with.

hippiemom

jlew24asu wrote:

the state dept doesnt ask permission for every little thing it does. the state dept is given a budget of over 9 billion. 43 million is nothing. did bush even know about this transation? who knows? do I agree with it? no

I knew about it. Yes, I expect the president to know at least as much as I do about what his immediate subordinates are up to.

jlew24asu wrote:

when did I say the state dept is part of the administration? I didnt for heavens sake. your first 4 questions of so irrelvant. again, its just your condesending way for talking to someone you dont agree with.

You said "I dont agree that bush's administration gave 43 million to the taliban. it was actually colin powell and the dept of state who was behind that," which sounds as though you believe the State Department and the administration to be two entirely separate entities.

jlew24asu

hippiemom wrote:

I knew about it. Yes, I expect the president to know at least as much as I do about what his immediate subordinates are up to.


You said "I dont agree that bush's administration gave 43 million to the taliban. it was actually colin powell and the dept of state who was behind that," which sounds as though you believe the State Department and the administration to be two entirely separate entities.

the state dept and the white house are separate entities.

hippiemom

jlew24asu wrote:

the state dept and the white house are separate entities.

That's like saying your marketing department is a separate entity from your company. Who was Colin Powell's boss?

Ahnimus

I guess you guys didn't know that people of all sexes, religions, skin pigmentation, etc.. are being attacked in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's called a war and civil unrest is a part of that.

I don't understand why if 5 men are killed it's an act of terrorism. If 5 women are killed it's an act of oppression.

You know, I go to Tim Horton's for a coffee every morning and sometimes this girl is working. She is muslim, she covers her hair and part of her face and she seems really happy. There is another young guy that works there, he doesn't cover himself up, he's actually really "in your face" with his appearance. He dyed his hair pink and blue and he has facial augments like piercings and he is the most miserable person there.

This is Canada and that girl doesn't have to wear the veil, but obviously she wants to and it's not destroying her life.

I mean, as outsiders we only know so much, we will never be in their shoes and sometimes I think we are just plain wrong.

Riverrunner

Ahnimus wrote:

I guess you guys didn't know that people of all sexes, religions, skin pigmentation, etc.. are being attacked in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's called a war and civil unrest is a part of that.

I don't understand why if 5 men are killed it's an act of terrorism. If 5 women are killed it's an act of oppression.

You know, I go to Tim Horton's for a coffee every morning and sometimes this girl is working. She is muslim, she covers her hair and part of her face and she seems really happy. There is another young guy that works there, he doesn't cover himself up, he's actually really "in your face" with his appearance. He dyed his hair pink and blue and he has facial augments like piercings and he is the most miserable person there.

This is Canada and that girl doesn't have to wear the veil, but obviously she wants to and it's not destroying her life.

I mean, as outsiders we only know so much, we will never be in their shoes and sometimes I think we are just plain wrong.

The major difference between the girl at TH in Canada and a girl in Afghanistan, Iraq or wherever is that girl at Horton's has a choice. The women in many if not most muslim countries HAVE NO CHOICE! It is the fact that they are made to do things and not allowed to do others. They can't change their life unless they somehow left their family and their home and escaped to another country and managed to make a life totally on their own without an education or the training to know how to take care of yourself. I don't approve the subjugation of women unless they choose to be subjugated.

Further, the women in these countries are being targeted because they are women trying to improve the social status and economic status of women. They are being targeted because there is a movement to keep women subjugated. It is not like a terrorist bomb that kills randomly. The targeting of women is meant to stop women.

Ahnimus

Riverrunner wrote:

The major difference between the girl at TH in Canada and a girl in Afghanistan, Iraq or wherever is that girl at Horton's has a choice. The women in many if not most muslim countries HAVE NO CHOICE! It is the fact that they are made to do things and not allowed to do others. They can't change their life unless they somehow left their family and their home and escaped to another country and managed to make a life totally on their own without an education or the training to know how to take care of yourself. I don't approve the subjugation of women unless they choose to be subjugated.

Further, the women in these countries are being targeted because they are women trying to improve the social status and economic status of women. They are being targeted because there is a movement to keep women subjugated. It is not like a terrorist bomb that kills randomly. The targeting of women is meant to stop women.

Well here is a picture of an Iraqi woman getting her make-up done from an aerobics video. Notice none of the women are wearing head-dresses and they are in-fact wearing make-up!!!!

I think this whole story is full of shit. Regardless, Sunnis are being targetted by Shiite and vice versa. It's not just women that are being targetted for their beliefs, it's everyone.