New World Order
See other New World Order Articles
Title: Obama will go down in history as the president who lost Egypt
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio ... sident-who-lost-egypt-1.340057
Published: Jan 30, 2011
Author: Aluf Benn
Post Date: 2011-01-30 18:40:45 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 34259
Comments: 44
Jimmy Carter will go down in American history as "the president who lost Iran," which during his term went from being a major strategic ally of the United States to being the revolutionary Islamic Republic. Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who "lost" Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt, and during whose tenure America's alliances in the Middle East crumbled. The superficial circumstances are similar. In both cases, a United States in financial crisis and after failed wars loses global influence under a leftist president whose good intentions are interpreted abroad as expressions of weakness. The results are reflected in the fall of regimes that were dependent on their relationship with Washington for survival, or in a change in their orientation, as with Ankara. America's general weakness clearly affects its friends. But unlike Carter, who preached human rights even when it hurt allies, Obama sat on the fence and exercised caution. He neither embraced despised leaders nor evangelized for political freedom, for fear of undermining stability. Obama began his presidency with trips to Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and in speeches in Ankara and Cairo tried to forge new ties between the United States and the Muslim world. His message to Muslims was "I am one of you," and he backed it by quoting from the Koran. President Hosni Mubarak did not join him on the stage at Cairo University, and Obama did not mention his host. But he did not imitate his hated predecessor, President George W. Bush, with blunt calls for democracy and freedom. Obama apparently believed the main problem of the Middle East was the Israeli occupation, and focused his policy on demanding the suspension of construction in the settlements and on the abortive attempt to renew the peace talks. That failure led him to back off from the peace process in favor of concentrating on heading off an Israeli-Iranian war. Americans debated constantly the question of whether Obama cut his policy to fit the circumstances or aimed at the wrong targets. The absence of human rights issues from U.S. policy vis-a-vis Arab states drew harsh criticism; he was accused of ignoring the zeitgeist and clinging to old, rotten leaders. In the past few months many opinion pieces have appeared in the Western press asserting that the days of Mubarak's regime are numbered and calling on Obama to reach out to the opposition in Egypt. There was a sense that the U.S. foreign policy establishment was shaking off its long-term protege in Cairo, while the administration lagged behind the columnists and commentators. The administration faced a dilemma. One can guess that Obama himself identified with the demonstrators, not the aging dictator. But a superpower isn't the civil rights movement. If it abandons its allies the moment they flounder, who would trust it tomorrow? That's why Obama rallied to Mubarak's side until Friday, when the force of the protests bested his regime. The street revolts in Tunisia and Egypt showed that the United States can do very little to save its friends from the wrath of their citizens. Now Obama will come under fire for not getting close to the Egyptian opposition leaders soon enough and not demanding that Mubarak release his opponents from jail. He will be accused of not pushing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hard enough to stop the settlements and thus indirectly quell the rising tides of anger in the Muslim world. But that's a case of 20:20 hindsight. There's no guarantee that the Egyptian or Tunisian masses would have been willing to live in a repressive regime even if construction in Ariel was halted or a few opposition figures were released from jail. Now Obama will try to hunker down until the winds of revolt die out, and then forge ties with the new leaders in the region. It cannot be assumed that Mubarak's successors will be clones of Iran's leaders, bent on pursuing a radical anti-American policy. Perhaps they will emulate Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who navigates among the blocs and superpowers without giving up his country's membership in NATO and its defense ties with the United States. Erdogan obtained a good deal for Turkey, which benefits from political stability and economic growth without being in anyone's pocket. It could work for Egypt, too.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Of course you know, THAT was the plan all along. ;) Surround the bastard state with unrestrained foes. Now if only Jordan would take a dive, I'd have to call it a good weekend, indeed.
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
Utter nonsense. Turkey was lost as an Israel ally when Israel soldiers border a Turkish ship and murdered 9 people last May. What would the U.S. do if the Israelis attacked an American ship???
#2. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who "lost" Turkey
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill
#3. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Iraq, and Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and Tunisia, and Yemen, and Jordan, and...
Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who "lost" Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt,
#4. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Wouldn't be the first time we lost Egypt.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
#5. To: lucysmom (#4)
We lost Iran by the way the Shah and his secret police had been propped up by the U.S. government in general. If you read the history of foreign entanglements and the undue influence we have see the west engage in politically and socially, the backlash that happened in Iran was to be expected. The Hostage situation did Carter in to the extent that event hurt him. And the Iranians manipulated that as much as possible by waiting until Reagan got in office. Egypt is an explosion in progress, and until the chips fall, nobody know how this is going to hurt anyone worse than anyone else. Though it's not surprising to see the spin start early.
#6. To: jwpegler (#2)
The Israelis didn't murder anyone, they defended themselves when they were attacked by idiot jihaddis seeking 72 virgin martyrdom for creating an international incident. The ship refused to stop at the blockade knowing they would be boarded if they didn't. And the Israelis, as expected, did board it to search for weapons because they're tired of your friends shooting rockets at them from Gaza. I don't know if Allah gave them their virgins, but I'll give them a Darwin Award.
Israel soldiers border a Turkish ship and murdered 9 people last May.
#7. To: Ferret Mike (#5)
First we ousted their elected Prime Minister, socialist you know, and then installed the Shah. Ungrateful people, the Iranians. Egypt is an explosion in progress, and until the chips fall, nobody know how this is going to hurt anyone worse than anyone else. We don't know, but others have all the answers.
We lost Iran by the way the Shah and his secret police had been propped up by the U.S. government in general. If you read the history of foreign entanglements and the undue influence we have see the west engage in politically and socially, the backlash that happened in Iran was to be expected.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
#8. To: lucysmom (#7)
His secret police Savak will go down in history as one of the most sadistic terror wing any dictator eve had. And we were largely silent on there activities as things played our way. The Shah overplayed the Westernization effort too, which caused deep stress and resentment fueling the revolution there. We had a good idea before the revolution things would change, but the depth and scope of those changed surprised us greatly and caught us completely by surprise.
#9. To: Ferret Mike (#5)
When you look into the Ayatollah in France shift: If some Arab leader ever gets the balls to tell the truth to his people,...how most leaders sell out to the Globalists and take money. Muslim nations are simply being re postioned for future wars,micro conflicts and fake war on terror.Egypt is an explosion in progress, and until the chips fall, nobody know how this is going to hurt anyone worse than anyone else.
He was sending audio cassette's for Irans street....until Air France flew him in.
This smacks of people/powered coup,....different than CIA outting Mossedeq and putting in Shah.
I see the Elites as capable of running both
The Ayatollah creates this Evil monster image the west and Israel need.
You see the cartoonish charactuer of Khomeni brooding in the giant steet banners and artwork.
He becomes the Expected one who will right all wrongs,...and plays perfectly to the Islamist mind.
They tried to make Osama bin laden this brooding evil image too,....and relented at the obvious failure.
so ya,...Bin laden is a terror geek who hides in caves with laptops and sends death by cell phone command.
These so call evil leaders are so fake.
The Mullahs all have off shore accounts,..in US dollars.
Hoser Mubarak must be pissed,...he's done everything asked of him by the US and Israel,...and now his son will not inherit.
when that truth hits the street,...the people will really lose it.
#10. To: Parrot with speed dial (#9)
I went to Egypt three years ago with a former Egyptain general who now lives in Portland and works a retirement job as security at Portland Saturday Market. He goes back every year and takes someone from here with him every time he goes. We stayed in retired officer quarters there. He is so modest, it wasn't until we got there that I found out he had been the top general before retiring. It really opened my eyes going there myself. I wish the best for the people and land there. And I hope they get a government better than what they had, and the worst they could wind up with now.
#11. To: Ferret Mike (#8)
#12. To: Ferret Mike (#10)
#13. To: All (#12)
Highest Rated Comments * It's so hard to see these images without pain.. Such a beautiful country and still with so much more to gain, it's so upsetting to see it fall the way it did. when you imagine what it could have achieved in the hands of His Majesty Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. We could have been a strong nation if ourŒ79; people knew what they wanted and fought for it. I hope Iran will be free once again and the Iranian people at peace. Rest in Peace my King Arash00London 9 months ago 5 Arash00London 9 months ago 5 * Javid shah PayadehŒ79; Iran Kami1953 10 months ago 3 Kami1953 10 months ago 3 see all All Comments (280) Respond to this video... Alert icon Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment! * shahŒ79; criminal moudensalah 1 day ago moudensalah 1 day ago * ShahŒ79; of Iran was an extremely educated, classy,civilized and Patriotic human being that was unlucky enough ruling a very back warded, religious, fanatic and superstitious nation Imperialpsalm 1 week ago Imperialpsalm 1 week ago * This video makes me cry. The destinyŒ79; of the man who modernised our country makes me cry. The stupidity of Iranians make me cry. Imperialpsalm 2 weeks ago Imperialpsalm 2 weeks ago * @TUBE4HT Death to IslamŒ79; 19BenZ57 3 weeks ago 19BenZ57 3 weeks ago * the man who was the LORDŒ79; of persia.rip. my friend. shahabb1000 1 month ago shahabb1000 1 month ago * 5;ž8;ª5; 8; 8; §0;ž8; 5;5; 5; ž0;5;ž5;®0; ž8;ž3;. ¦2;5;®0; 6;ž3; 7; 6;5;ž3; ž8;5; 7; 7; 5;®0;ž5;5; 6; . 5; 5; 6; 8; 6; 5;ž6; 5;®0; 6; 8;®0;ž3;4; 8;Œ79; khameniGAV 2 months ago khameniGAV 2 months ago * @GrandMajesties Khomeini said he would have never stepped foot in Iran as longŒ79; as the Shah was there. Gorrrillla5 2 months ago Gorrrillla5 2 months ago * A real patriot. A true lover of Iran and its people. Thank you, Pahlavi monarchyŒ79; for building Iran, for the freedoms you gave us, the liberty to study, work, and enjoy life. kit007yes 2 months ago kit007yes 2 months ago * R.I.P my king...sorry for our parents mistake.Persia misses You.Hope one day we se Iran like it was under your dynasti.We...children of Cyrus,will bring Persia back toŒ79; her glory. R.I.P persia4life1 3 months ago persia4life1 3 months ago * va to pedare tajdar va khandan hamisheh javid pahlavi ke tarikh sabet kardeh va khahad kard ke shomaha cheghadr be in abo khak khedat kardeheed tamame in bad bakhtiha ke be sare ma iraniyan amad baad az to pedare tajdar va shaheh shahan inha hameh azaabist ke khodavand be khatere namak nashnasiye ma heyvanate bi fekr i ke arzeshe to ra nadanestim bar ma vared kard Œ79; shayad bachehaye man dar ayandeh bedanand ke nabayad gole eslame haromzadehe kasif ro nakhorand. javid shah va khandanash tiger101irani 3 months ago tiger101irani 3 months ago
#14. To: A K A Stone (#11)
Thanks, yeah I've seen that and it's interesting. The U.S. has deeply influenced the governance of Iran for many decades, and so it would behoove anyone calling for a war with Iran to go back and read up on just how systemic our influence has been. They still might support war, but if they at least gain insight as to how we are not always the good guys in everything we do there it helps when engaging in lively debate with them in forum about this topic.
#15. To: Parrot with speed dial (#9)
#16. To: Ferret Mike (#14)
Mike we were the good guys. They had it better under the Shah then they presently do. It is unfortunate he had to govern a bunch of superstitious fools.
#17. To: A K A Stone (#15) (Edited)
By Salma Abdelaziz, CNN (CNN) -- While discontent, resentment and nationalism continue to fuel demonstrations, one vital staple is in short supply: food. Many families in Egypt are fast running out of staples such as bread, beans and rice and are often unable or unwilling to shop for groceries. "Everything is running out. I have three children, and I only have enough to feed them for maybe two more days. After that I do not know what we will do." school administrator Gamalat Gadalla told CNN. The unrest has paralyzed daily life in Egypt with many grocers closing shop and spotty food shipments. "With the curfew, there are no restaurants, food or gas. Basic goods will soon be in shortage," Sandmonkey, an Egyptian blogger said via Twitter. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has ordered a curfew in Egypt to be extended from 3 p.m. to 8 a.m. on Monday, further stifling normal life in the embattled nation. Egyptian state-run Nile TV has set up a hotline for citizens to call in and report bread shortages. There has been no other indication of what the Egyptian government is doing to address the crisis. http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/01/30/egypt.protests.food/index.html? eref=rss_mostpopular&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed% 3A+rss%2Fcnn_mostpopular+%28RSS%3A+Most+Popular%29&utm_content=Twitter There are many desperately poor people there and this is a huge factor. There simply is not the sane degree of stored food there as we enjoy here. I really hope they pay attention to supplying things like food, as nothing will fuel revolution like hunger. It reduces people to a more primal level, and hunger will spark even more looting, and even move vicious fighting than we have seen to date.
Food staples starting to run out in Egypt
#18. To: Ferret Mike (#17)
...and even move vicious fighting than we have seen to date.
...and even move vicious fighting then we have seen to date.
#19. To: Fred Mertz (#18)
#20. To: A K A Stone (#16)
Not really. There was a great deal of torture and repression under the Shah's iron fisted rule. I was glad to see him go, but it would of been far more useful to have gotten rid of him much earlier. Savak: (snip) A turning point in SAVAK's reputation for ruthless brutality was reportedly an attack on a gendarmerie post in the Caspian village of Siahkal by a small band of armed Marxists in February 1971, although it is also reported to have tortured to death a Shia cleric, Ayatollah Muhammad Reza Sa'idi, in 1970.[16] According to Iranian political historian Ervand Abrahamian, after this attack SAVAK interrogators were sent abroad for "scientific training to prevent unwanted deaths from 'brute force.' Brute force was supplemented with the bastinado; sleep deprivation; extensive solitary confinement; glaring searchlights; standing in one place for hours on end; nail extractions; snakes (favored for use with women); electrical shocks with cattle prods, often into the rectum; cigarette burns; sitting on hot grills; acid dripped into nostrils; near-drownings; mock executions; and an electric chair with a large metal mask to muffle screams while amplifying them for the victim. This latter contraption was dubbed the Apollo—an allusion to the American space capsules. Prisoners were also humiliated by being raped, urinated on, and forced to stand naked. [17] Despite the new 'scientific' methods, the torture of choice remained the traditional bastinado used to beat soles of the feet. The "primary goal" of those using the bastinados "was to locate arms caches, safe houses and accomplices ..." [18] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK
"They had it better under the Shah then they presently do."
SAVAK (Persian: National Intelligence and Security Organization) was the secret police, domestic security and intelligence service established by Iran's Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi by recommendation of the government of the United Kingdom[citation needed] and with the help of the United States' Central Intelligence Agency and Israel's Mossad. SAVAK operated from 1957 to 1979, when the Pahlavi dynasty was overthrown. SAVAK has been described as Iran's "most hated and feared institution" prior to the revolution of 1979 because of its practice of torturing and executing opponents of the Pahlavi regime.[1][2] At its peak, the organization had as many as 60,000 agents serving in its ranks according to one source,[3] although Gholam Reza Afkhami, whose work on the Shah has been described as a "sympathetic biography",[4] estimates SAVAK staffing at between 4,000 and 6,000.[5]
#21. To: Fred Mertz (#18)
Heh, thanks Fred, though you must admit my then/than use has improved after your feedback on this foible I have regarding the two words. ;-D
#22. To: Ferret Mike (#20)
You really don't believe in womens rights do you? The Shah wasn't perfect but his brutality compared to the current regime makes him look like soft little pussy. Iran could have been so much better but they took up islam and regressed about 2000 years.
#23. To: A K A Stone (#22)
As long as you're not a homosexual or a druggie, you'd probably find Iran to be a very nice country.
Iran could have been so much better but they took up islam and regressed about 2000 years.
#24. To: A K A Stone (#22)
I have read much about the stress and tension the intense pace of imposing aspects of Western culture on the people there caused. One good analogy I remember reading was where one author asked readers like me to imagine living here and having to adopt say an Islamic lifestyle and all the cultural trappings and to tap our common sense knowledge of how this would cause a similar revolt here. A revolt that would likely but an extremist government in power in backlash to the cultural transplanting. You have to remember, that to many Muslims, the focus on make-up, cosmetic surgery and skimpy clothing is an oppression of women they feel their way of imposing what they impose as liberating. It is a case of just how differently each culture can look at things. And things have loosened up somewhat and I hope will get better. In the immediate aftermath of the revolution, a woman could be severely punished for showing even one head hair in public. Now you see this standard is far different with scarves worn much more loosely, and women getting back to using make-up.
#25. To: Ferret Mike (#24)
Hogwash
#26. To: A K A Stone (#22)
The three religions agree on one basic fact: Both women and men are created by God, The Creator of the whole universe. However, disagreement starts soon after the creation of the first man, Adam, and the first woman, Eve. The Judaeo-Christian conception of the creation of Adam and Eve is narrated in detail in Genesis 2:4-3:24. God prohibited both of them from eating the fruits of the forbidden tree. The serpent seduced Eve to eat from it and Eve, in turn, seduced Adam to eat with her. When God rebuked Adam for what he did, he put all the blame on Eve, "The woman you put here with me --she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it." Consequently, God said to Eve: "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you." To Adam He said: "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree .... Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life..." The Islamic conception of the first creation is found in several places in the Quran, for example: "O Adam dwell with your wife in the Garden and enjoy as you wish but approach not this tree or you run into harm and transgression. Then Satan whispered to them in order to reveal to them their shame that was hidden from them and he said: 'Your Lord only forbade you this tree lest you become angels or such beings as live forever.' And he swore to them both that he was their sincere adviser. So by deceit he brought them to their fall: when they tasted the tree their shame became manifest to them and they began to sew together the leaves of the Garden over their bodies. And their Lord called unto them: 'Did I not forbid you that tree and tell you that Satan was your avowed enemy?' They said: 'Our Lord we have wronged our own souls and if You forgive us not and bestow not upon us Your Mercy, we shall certainly be lost' " (7:19:23). A careful look into the two accounts of the story of the Creation reveals some essential differences. The Quran, contrary to the Bible, places equal blame on both Adam and Eve for their mistake. Nowhere in the Quran can one find even the slightest hint that Eve tempted Adam to eat from the tree or even that she had eaten before him. Eve in the Quran is no temptress, no seducer, and no deceiver. Moreover, Eve is not to be blamed for the pains of childbearing. God, according to the Quran, punishes no one for another's faults. Both Adam and Eve committed a sin and then asked God for forgiveness and He forgave them both. from Women In Islam Versus Women In The Judaeo-Christian Tradition http://www.twf.org/Library/WomenICJ.html Remember too there are definately areas regarding how women are looked at or treated where Islam comes out ahead. The above comparison as to how the religious text differes beween the two religions. In this regard, Islam comes out looking far better as to how women are regarded.
(snip)EVE'S FAULT ?
#27. To: A K A Stone (#25)
Not 'hogwash' at all. I spent much time reading area studies at the library in the JFK Center for Military Assistance while in the Army as I was not a partier or did the usual activities many of my peers did. It compelled me to go to college with a political science major where I read even more about all parts of the world especially about Africa, Persia and the Middle East. If you know differently, by all means post a rebuttal. One word only denotes your opinion. I would need to see citation and written rebuttal to be influenced to believe differently than I do.
#28. To: Ferret Mike (#10)
I was in Egypt many years ago as the guest of a family in Cairo. I share your hopes for the Egyptian people and their country.
It really opened my eyes going there myself. I wish the best for the people and land there. And I hope they get a government better than what they had, and the worst they could wind up with now.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
#29. To: A K A Stone (#22)
I guess it depends on who is being brutalized.
The Shah wasn't perfect but his brutality compared to the current regime makes him look like soft little pussy.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
#30. To: Ferret Mike (#24)
Just look at how upset some people are about Mexican immigrants changing our culture, I can only imagine what the reaction would be if the influence were imposed by law.
A revolt that would likely but an extremist government in power in backlash to the cultural transplanting.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
#31. To: lucysmom, A K A Stone (#29)
Iran under this current system of theirs has more elective democracy (as imperfect, rigged and limited as it is) than the system under the Shah - certainly more than Saudi Arabia currently does.
The Shah wasn't perfect but his brutality compared to the current regime makes him look like soft little pussy.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
#32. To: Ferret Mike (#26)
Women are treated better in Iran - more rights - than they do in Saudi Arabia. It is not Islam per say - just the brand of Islam that affects women's rights.
In this regard, Islam comes out looking far better as to how women are regarded.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
#33. To: lucysmom, A K A Stone (#29)
Finally, let us shed some light on what is considered in the West as the greatest symbol of women's oppression and servitude, the veil or the head cover. Is it true that there is no such thing as the veil in the Judaeo-Christian tradition? Let us set the record straight. According to Rabbi Dr. Menachem M. Brayer (Professor of Biblical Literature at Yeshiva University) in his book, The Jewish woman in Rabbinic literature, it was the custom of Jewish women to go out in public with a head covering which, sometimes, even covered the whole face leaving one eye free. 76 He quotes some famous ancient Rabbis saying," It is not like the daughters of Israel to walk out with heads uncovered" and "Cursed be the man who lets the hair of his wife be seen....a woman who exposes her hair for self-adornment brings poverty." Rabbinic law forbids the recitation of blessings or prayers in the presence of a bareheaded married woman since uncovering the woman's hair is considered "nudity".77 Dr. Brayer also mentions that "During the Tannaitic period the Jewish woman's failure to cover her head was considered an affront to her modesty. When her head was uncovered she might be fined four hundred zuzim for this offense." Dr. Brayer also explains that veil of the Jewish woman was not always considered a sign of modesty. Sometimes, the veil symbolized a state of distinction and luxury rather than modesty. The veil personified the dignity and superiority of noble women. It also represented a woman's inaccessibility as a sanctified possession of her husband. 78 The veil signified a woman's self-respect and social status. Women of lower classes would often wear the veil to give the impression of a higher standing. The fact that the veil was the sign of nobility was the reason why prostitutes were not permitted to cover their hair in the old Jewish society. However, prostitutes often wore a special headscarf in order to look respectable. 79 Jewish women in Europe continued to wear veils until the nineteenth century when their lives became more intermingled with the surrounding secular culture. The external pressures of the European life in the nineteenth century forced many of them to go out bare-headed. Some Jewish women found it more convenient to replace their traditional veil with a wig as another form of hair covering. Today, most pious Jewish women do not cover their hair except in the synagogue. 80 Some of them, such as the Hasidic sects, still use the wig. 81 What about the Christian tradition? It is well known that Catholic Nuns have been covering their heads for hundreds of years, but that is not all. St. Paul in the New Testament made some very interesting statements about the veil: "Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head - it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head" (I Corinthians 11:3-10). St. Paul's rationale for veiling women is that the veil represents a sign of the authority of the man, who is the image and glory of God, over the woman who was created from and for man. St. Tertullian in his famous treatise 'On The Veiling Of Virgins' wrote, "Young women, you wear your veils out on the streets, so you should wear them in the church, you wear them when you are among strangers, then wear them among your brothers..." Among the Canon laws of the Catholic church today, there is a law that requires women to cover their heads in church. 82 Some Christian denominations, such as the Amish and the Mennonites for example, keep their women veiled to the present day. The reason for the veil, as offered by their Church leaders, is that "The head covering is a symbol of woman's subjection to the man and to God", which is the same logic introduced by St. Paul in the New Testament. 83 From all the above evidence, it is obvious that Islam did not invent the head cover. However, Islam did endorse it. The Quran urges the believing men and women to lower their gaze and guard their modesty and then urges the believing women to extend their head covers to cover the neck and the bosom: "Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty......And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms...." (24:30,31). The Quran is quite clear that the veil is essential for modesty, but why is modesty important? The Quran is still clear: "O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their bodies (when abroad) so that they should be known and not molested" (33:59). This is the whole point, modesty is prescribed to protect women from molestation or simply, modesty is protection. Thus, the only purpose of the veil in Islam is protection. The Islamic veil, unlike the veil of the Christian tradition, is not a sign of man's authority over woman nor is it a sign of woman's subjection to man. The Islamic veil, unlike the veil in the Jewish tradition, is not a sign of luxury and distinction of some noble married women. The Islamic veil is only a sign of modesty with the purpose of protecting women, all women. The Islamic philosophy is that it is always better to be safe than sorry. In fact, the Quran is so concerned with protecting women's bodies and women's reputation that a man who dares to falsely accuse a woman of unchastity will be severely punished: "And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations)- Flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors" (24:4) http://www.twf.org/Library/WomenICJ.html This is true, and in the case of the example of the veil and other visual restrictions women are made to follow there are something the above quote shows it's tradition in Christian and Jewish culture historically. And it give citation that shows the motivations and viewpoints causing the veiling and covering in Islam is more respectful of women's rights historically in Judaism and Christianity. It's right there in the above quote. If Stone has a rebuttal showing this historic citation as indeed inaccurate, I am more than willing to look at this and revise my viewpoint if it is wrong. But the above text is only one source where I have seen this documentation of how the three religions historically look at women. Everything I have seen consistently supports the documentation in the above quote>
THE VEIL
#34. To: Godwinson (#32)
This is very true. Women can't drive or do many other things women in Iran take for granted. Historically, Persia has been a very civilized and enlightened place. When Europeans were wearing course clothing, suffering from plagues and malnutrition during the feudal era were serfs were kept ignorant and chattel of a lord, Persians wore fine fabrics, had a better health during a longer lifespan and had a much higher literacy rate than Europeans did.
"Women are treated better in Iran - more rights - than they do in Saudi Arabia. It is not Islam per say - just the brand of Islam that affects women's rights."
#35. To: A K A Stone (#25) (Edited)
http://www.twf.org/Library/WomenICJ.html Pretty much the way I put it in regards to why they Islamic viewpoint in Iran is different than the way we look at women in Western culture.
"hogwash"
On the other hand, there are Muslim societies (or certain classes within some societies) that have been swept over by the Western culture and way of life. These societies often imitate unthinkingly whatever they receive from the West and usually end up adopting the worst fruits of Western civilization. In these societies, a typical "modern" woman's top priority in life is to enhance her physical beauty. Therefore, she is often obsessed with her body's shape, size, and weight. She tends to care more about her body than her mind and more about her charms than her intellect. Her ability to charm, attract, and excite is more valued in the society than her educational achievements, intellectual pursuits, and social work. One is not expected to find a copy of the Quran in her purse since it is full of cosmetics that accompany her wherever she goes. Her spirituality has no room in a society preoccupied with her attractiveness. Therefore, she would spend her life striving more to realize her femininity than to fulfil her humanity.
#36. To: Godwinson (#31)
Anousheh Ansari is the first Muslim women in space.
#37. To: Ferret Mike (#33)
Whether or not a woman wears a veil should be a matter of choice, not force. The Shah outlawed the veil and police forcefully removed veils from the heads of women appearing in public wearing them.
This is true, and in the case of the example of the veil and other visual restrictions women are made to follow there are something the above quote shows it's tradition in Christian and Jewish culture historically.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
#38. To: lucysmom (#37)
Very much agree wit this. I hope that like the changes in Christianity and Judaism where mandated veils were ended, this becomes the case as Islam evolves. Exactly; and this is an example of Westernization that alienated and and alarmed people concerning accelerated Westernization of Iran in the Shah's reign.
"Whether or not a woman wears a veil should be a matter of choice, not force."
"The Shah outlawed the veil and police forcefully removed veils from the heads of women appearing in public wearing them."
#39. To: Ferret Mike (#34)
That was not the case for the Eastern Roman/Byzantines or ironically the Spanish under the Moors or even for some of the Italians. For sure the French, Germans and English were miserable.
When Europeans were wearing course clothing, suffering from plagues and malnutrition during the feudal era were serfs were kept ignorant and chattel of a lord, Persians wore fine fabrics, had a better health during a longer lifespan and had a much higher literacy rate than Europeans did.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
#40. To: Ferret Mike (#36)
,,,,,the world's first female space tourist who happens to be Muslim. No big deal.
Anousheh Ansari is the first Muslim women in space.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
#41. To: Ferret Mike (#38)
It ain't liberation if you don't get to choose it.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
#42. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Nope. Military. And Sunni. Wait til we get to the POTUS who lost Turkey, the KSA, the Philippines and Israel.
It cannot be assumed that Mubarak's successors will be clones of Iran's leaders
#43. To: lucysmom (#41)
Nope, it's not. And I don't think women should be forced to wear one by any of the faiths that do or at one time required this of them.
#44. To: lucysmom (#37)
The Shah outlawed the veil and police forcefully removed veils from the heads of women appearing in public wearing them. This is partly why they overthrew the Shah and put in the brooding Khomenie. The Globalists want repressive Islam and dictatorship. Divide and conquer. And although the Green earther recycle movement makes sense vs the wastefull practices. Women are being suckered into this movement and will pull down their own world and end their own freedoms in complete hypno stupidity. Sure,....some people are concerned socialists seeking balance,..yet there is also the pro communist,anti religion,..and pure chaos overthrow sycophants in the mix. The British East India Co of the 21st is alive and reaching for everything they can lay their hands on.Whether or not a woman wears a veil should be a matter of choice, not force.
Then they want them at war with neighbours and each other.
The medium becomes a vehicle for exploiting people and nurturing socialist power grab in the disguise of world benefit.
behind that is a communist/fascism which will seek to have workers living in stack em and pack ems,.....moveing around on bicycles and public transit.
just as the Communist people pulled their own world down for the Elites who then went and slaughtered the teachers,leaders,poets,arts'y etc.
saying things will not end up in some fascist police state with China slave class type architecture is denial.
The system always seeks to end a middleclass and set up a serf/servant system entirely dependant,...on ...By your leave
They even have their old Opium holdings in A Stan up and running,...it must be heady days for this crowd.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]