|
Woman Of Mass Destruction
|
View this Thread in Original format
| star-traveller |
| quote: | Women Of Mass Destruction
What's International Women's Day Without A War Of Choice For Muslim Women?
By Alexander Zaitchik and Mark Ames
"Respect for women is a Bush Administration foreign policy priority."
-- U.S. International Women's Initiatives Fact Sheet
It's International Women's Day, and what better way to celebrate it than a new war to rescue the oppressed women of Islam? Yes, we're getting closer and closer to that magical day when President Bush orders American forces to launch the biggest yet of his running show of disasters: an attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran.
To rally the country for this highly anticipated catastrophe, Bush is taking a page out of his own playbook, the one called Iraq. After all, if it ain't fixed, why break it?
That strategy is this: a) accuse enemy-nation of developing mega-evil weapons that threaten Peoria, Illinois with total Day After-like annihilation, unless we stop them, but hurry! Intent: to scare the living out of every coupon-clipper from San Diego to Orlando; and b) accuse this same country of horrible abuses against women. Intent: to co-opt the important soccer mom demographic, while neutralizing liberals into silence lest they come off defending a nation of male chauvinist wife-beating pigs.
Think this strategy is too transparent? We'd agree with you, if we weren't talking about the same country that produced Police Academy 2, 3, 4, and 5. Bush knows the American public's weakness for repeats, which is why he's already started on this one. In his State of the Union speech in January, he played part a) of his playbook, blaming Iran for creating super-IEDs which are killing American soldiers, as well as accusing them of being on the verge of developing an A-bomb. All we're waiting for now is to hear about how horrible Iran's women are treated, and then it's smart bombs away.
But wait -- we don't have to wait. The propaganda war to save Iranian women actually kicked into gear one year ago this week, during George and Laura Bush's official celebration of International Women's Day.
"We must remember," said the U.S. president, "that many women in other countries around the world are still struggling for basic rights in places like Iran." Rounding out Bush's Axis of Estrogen-Suppression were plucky police states North Korea and Burma, but the Islamic Republic very pointedly came first. Bush might as well have handed out copies of Azar Nafisi's best-selling mullah-slamming Reading Lolita in Tehran, then called it a day.
Posing as the world's White Knight coming to the aid of damsels in distress across the globe may seem strange when you consider that this is the same administration that has been working to roll back the clock on reproductive rights and sexual health policy at home and around the world. It's even stranger when you consider it is best friends with leading wife-beater nation Saudi Arabia. In the Kingdom, women who appear in public without a male escort are breaking the law; if they do so dressed in non-Sharia clothes, they risk arrest and a good stomping by the religious police. Gender discrimination is state policy and strictly enforced.
So why is the Bush administration selectively posing as enlightened and chivalric international defender of women?
Because it's good for war. It helped rally the public behind the Afghanistan campaign; then it briefly helped shore up support for the occupation of Iraq. A year before the march on Baghdad Colin Powell proclaimed, "[T]he worldwide advancement of women's issues is not only in keeping with the deeply held values of the American people; it is strongly in our national interest as well." Blair and his cabinet were naturals at framing the rights of Muslim women as a national security and civilizational priority. UK Trade secretary Patricia Hewitt, of Blair's cabinet, said before the Iraq invasion, "This [war] is about building a new civil society in Iraq after 35 years when we know women were suppressed, and ensuring women have a voice in Iraq."
It gets darker. The person Bush put in charge of defending women's rights around the world was not a veteran human rights activist, but rather B-movie villain Paula Dobriansky, who serves as Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs. Dobriansky was a key member of the infamous Project for the New American Century, which advocated war with Iraq and global domination (as well as a "Pearl Harbor-like event") back in 1998. She also served in the American Enterprise Institute, the neocon think-tank. Her main accomplishment in government before painting the administration's wars pink was to help stonewall global action on climate change. Dobriansky-the-women's-crusader has long fought against the Kyoto treaty, arguing "we still don't know if it's happening or why" over and over, including at major UN climate conferences. |
Woman Of Mass Destruction |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Dood, where's your spin on this?
What are we debating here...
I can go to Google and get this...:whip: |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | | "We must remember," said the U.S. president, "that many women in other countries around the world are still struggling for basic rights in places like Iran." |
If he really cares about the most BASIC RIGHTS, why doesn't he condemn the fact that in Iran gay people have 4 choices of death:
(1) Hung
(2) Sliced in half
(3) Stoned to death
(4) Dropped from the highest perch
Btw, you can escape the death penalty if you get a sex change. That's why there's so many trannys in Iran. |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
Btw, you can escape the death penalty if you get a sex change. That's why there's so many trannys in Iran. |
interesting..... |
|
|
| Lilith |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Dood, where's your spin on this?
What are we debating here...
I can go to Google and get this...:whip: |
He always does it, large lump of text, some pics of dead people or something and wanders off probably feeling quite clever with himself for reading it on the internets.
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
If he really cares about the most BASIC RIGHTS, why doesn't he condemn the fact that in Iran gay people have 4 choices of death: |
Hey if it was about being sensible they would have bothered to throw some mud on Saudi Arabia as well which has just as/if not worse record in the same areas of human rights, but it's not politically correct to do that when they own large amounts of US investments. |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
He always does it, large lump of text, some pics of dead people or something and wanders off probably feeling quite clever with himself for reading it on the internets.
|
ha ha maybe someone should go into the PDD CORE and report this stuff to Lira :rolleyes: |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Dood, where's your spin on this?
What are we debating here...
I can go to Google and get this...:whip: |
Its more of his typical post of an article off some propaganda site followed by absolutely no comments or discussion.
Lets all cheer for him, he has mastered the art of cut and paste. |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
If he really cares about the most BASIC RIGHTS, why doesn't he condemn the fact that in Iran gay people have 4 choices of death:
(1) Hung
(2) Sliced in half
(3) Stoned to death
(4) Dropped from the highest perch
Btw, you can escape the death penalty if you get a sex change. That's why there's so many trannys in Iran. |
But Iran is a islam state. In the Koran it says homosexuality is bad and being a transsexual is ok according to the Koran. It's the major reason why people settle for a sex change rather than having to die that way. And what is with you and gay people? You gay:eyes: ?! |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
ha ha maybe someone should go into the PDD CORE and report this stuff to Lira :rolleyes: |
Kind of the same way he reported me to Lira? But yeah don't count on Lira. He has a bias. |
|
|
| star-traveller |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Dood, where's your spin on this?
What are we debating here...
I can go to Google and get this...:whip: |
Personally I agree with this article.
Bush doesn't care about Iranian women at all. All he is trying to do is to use every ing trick to blame and bush this country. And using women to do that is outrageous.
Is that engough of debate for you? |
|
|
| Lira |
What is wrong with him posting articles without content? Don't like it, then just ignore it :conf:
No need to report anything to me, I read the threads as often as I can ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
Kind of the same way he reported me to Lira? But yeah don't count on Lira. He has a bias. |
Yeah. I don't like metal, I've got something against gears and I prefer liquids over solid stuff.
Please, I was not the first person to ever suspend you, just behave and you'll realise I won't do anything to you ;) |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by star-traveller
Personally I agree with this article.
Bush doesn't care about Iranian women at all. All he is trying to do is to use every ing trick to blame and bush this country. And using women to do that is outrageous.
Is that engough of debate for you? |
I wouldn't say that after reading this --> >> Muslim women can reshape Islam <<
They have a better chance than the U.S. military's gunpoint method that's for sure.
Why not eat the problem from the inside? |
|
|
|
|
