Quote of the day
You, who frighten people with Hell, have brought them a hell on earth.
Buthayna Nasser
Watch this courageous woman do a take down on an insufferable fundamentalist Muslim cleric. It’s enjoyable to watch him do a slow burn while trying hard to portray the face of total equanimity. One can only imagine what he is thinking as this woman shreds him. I’m sure he is fantasizing about what he would do to her – and I don’t mean sexually – were he to have her in his control.
(Our assistant Kristi’s husband was a Marine and was in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War. He told me of an instance where his platoon was walking across a street in front of a large Mercedes with a Saudi male at the wheel and, presumably, his wife in the passenger seat. The woman was veiled and was simply watching as the troops passed in front of the car. The male looked over, noticed the woman simply watching the soldiers pass by, and smashed her in the face with his fist. The blow knocked her against the side window of the car. She immediately dropped her head and looked at the floor so that she couldn’t possibly be seen to be looking at a male. Wonderful people, at least the males. When Kristi’s husband told me about this years after it had happened, he became agitated and began clenching his fists. He said it was all the Marines who witnessed this behavior could do to keep from dragging this jerk out of his car and giving him a little of his own medicine.)
I can’t imagine the gumption it takes for a woman to step up to the plate like this on live Saudi TV, knowing that Saudi Arabia is a place under Islamic rule (aside from the Royal family who don’t particularly hew to Islamic law and have their own huge security force to protect them from their own subjects) where people have their hands cut off for stealing, are beheaded for adultery, and are publicly whipped for the most minor infractions.
Ms. Nasser’s courage is one of the few signs I’ve seen that give me hope that the most militant fundamentalist branch of Islam may be showing some cracks in the armor.
God bless her!
Yes there are reasons for the US to hate the Iranians (and vice versa). Yes the US and many other foreign nationals were attacked but not by a foreign backed army (as in Iran), and yes it is curious why the Saudis (where most of the terrorists and their funding originated) are still regarded as an ally.
But again you are missing the point. The article you referenced points out that we have never learnt from history – in fact the parallels to the history we are currently repeating are scary in themselves. We have not learnt those lessons because the strongest influences on US Middle Eastern policy come from the Christian religious right who see merit in inflaming the situation to pursue what to them is the glory of Armageddon. These are the same people who strenuously oppose any ‘road map’ for peace. These are the same people who whip up your citizens into righteous calls for pre-emptive strikes against (particularly) Iran – and publish best selling books (check out the number 2 on Amazon right now) calling for this course of action.
I was watching the TV version of Richard Dawkins latest works which is belatedly being shown here as well as a locally made protrayal of the power of fundamentalists in your country. Both Islamic and Christian nutters were interviewed – both calling for the death and destruction of the others (the Americans openly canvassing the idea of a nuclear strike against Iran). It really is too hard to decide which message is more chilling … but as I say, it is (as you guys say) a “no brainer” why the Iranians are seeking greater firepower to defend themselves.
I can’t help but repeat myself. We’ve got nutters calling for the death and destruction of them – they’ve got nutters (probably more than we; and their nutters hold jobs as heads of state whereas ours are heads of churches–a big difference) calling for our death and destruction. We’ve had The Bomb for over 60 years and have never used it other than in WW II. We don’t know what they will do. But we can get a clue based on their past behavior.
Here is another interesting article on the subject with a different viewpoint than the last one I linked to. It contains the following quote from Bernard Lewis, a Princeton professor and probably the world’s expert on Islam:
Here is what the Ayatolla Khomeini had to say about love of country:
Yep, I’d much prefer our nutters to theirs. And you should know better than to draw conclusions about a country from a television special. Especially one showing Richard Dawkin’s view of the world; it’s in his best interest to show the absolute worst in American religious behavior. If I got all my information from TV, I would assume all Australian wrestled alligators regularly.
Cheers–
MRE
Actually Dawkins was just about doubled up bending over backwards to be fair and present the views of both sides in their own words – he is not anti American, just anti religion (as I am). I think we need someone much more emphatic to point out the complete gibberish these people believe is leading the world on it’s most dangerous (and irrational) course yet.
Yes your nutters are leaders of churches not heads of state – but people like McCain openly seek their endorsement as they probably correctly see their approval (and policies that lead to that approval) as vital for election – so in practical terms, their influence over foreign policy is very similar to their Islamic opposite numbers. Are your/our nutters preferable to theirs? – well maybe, but at least the influence they have on my day to day life (and yours) is considerably greater – and the indications are that this interference will only increase unless someone makes a stand for a rational society.
We can have some say in that, while there is little we can do to influence public policy in Iran apart from denouncing calls for pre-emptive strikes (either nuclear or like in Iraq the use of cluster bombs to ‘shock and awe’ civilians into liking our way of thinking more) – if we do so, at least there is less pressure for those in control of Iran to escalate the arms race in the region. The fact remains is that while McCain thinks it is a funny idea, bombing Iran will make the situation much, much worse and you might wonder when perhaps the next President openly has breakfast meetings with nutters like John Hagee, where the idea came from in the first place.
Don’t ever read much into what candidates say in the primary elections in the US. If you’re a candidate for president, your first goal is to get the nomination. Getting the nomination typically means getting in bed with powerful groups within your party. If you’re a Democrat, this means appealing to the wacko left; if a Republican, the religious right. Candidates typically tack to the fringes during the primaries, then rush to the center during the general election.
And I’ll say it again. In the US religious fundamentalists have the ear of some of the advisers to the president; the president weighs what they have to say along with what other non-religious right inclined advisers have to say, and makes a decision. (Many people here believe Dick Cheney is really in charge, and he’s never been accused of being in bed with the religious right as has Bush.) In Iran the fundamentalists run the government–they are the decision makers. And no one in power in the US is going to risk killing hundreds of thousands of people in this country to attack Iran whereas I’m not so sure that the Iranian leaders wouldn’t gladly sacrifice several hundred thousand to strike a blow at the Great Satan for the greater glory of Allah.