Question/Answer

Gguru asked on 05/29/04 - Itslonelyatthetop...... Dear Missy! I wish you,meow,fine next couple of days,meow! Shall we plan a busy ahppy free weekend,meow?! I feel,meow,its time for that,meow. Now!(meow) Love! Nick XCHOUX answered on 05/30/04: Yes, my darling boy! However, since thunderstorms have been coming through this weekend as is usual in a MidWestern spring you are in your usual place cringing under the sofa! NICK! Get outta there! NICK! I have a treat for you!!!!! Gguru rated this answer

Question/Answer

tomder55 asked on 05/10/04 - the law of unintended consequences ? Iraqi Abuse and the "Arab Street" By Larry Schweikart FrontPageMagazine.com | May 10, 2004 Amidst all the apologies, I want to suggest we all (Hillary Clinton here) take a deep breath and consider something that no one in the administration or Congress has (publicly) considered: The POW photos are having an unintended effect on the Arab "Street" and the "resistance." By now, everyone pretty well knows that Arab societies base everything on power and perceptions of power. In part, that is why so many Freepers and conservatives got their panties in a bunch because it appeared in public like "apologizing" was a sign of weakness. Ah, my friends. You aren't thinking like an Arab. The "street" and, indeed, the leadership doesn't trust much of what we say---they only look at what we do. It would have made no difference if Bush formally apologized and sent each detainee a bouquet of flowers---the "street" would see that as a sham, a pretense, a distraction from the "real" policy. No, I suggest something else. That the Arab "street" and especially the "resistance" has taken from those photos a message we didn't intend to send, but one that strikes fear into the very heart of them---a message of pure power and dominance. The submissive positions of these "tough" Iraqi men under the heels and attached to the leashes of WOMEN (and relatively small women, at that) sends a very powerful message to the "street." Don't screw with the Americans. Oh, they'll "apologize," be we know that when the hearings are over, and the attention is off, they can do what they want. I want to reiterate: this is foreign to our way of thinking. Unless you're a hard-core Democrat, you don't pathologically lie to achieve your objectives. But we must start thinking like the enemy. Consider the following: *Norway's Nettavision reported that a comedienne caused an outrage from her "stand-up stunt" where she demanded that a local fundamentalist Mullah be "tested" to see if he was really a "fundamentalist." *One of the abused prisoners said "he will go home to his family in Nasiriyah but his shame will not allow him to stay." ("The Humiliated Man Beneath the Hood") He said through a translator that the sexual humilation was the worst part of the interrogation. *Right after the fall of Baghdad, reporters went into the Egyptian street to find outrage. They found it . . . at Saddam, for being so humiliated. Those interviewed were distraught they had believed Baghdad Bob and were ashamed of the ease with which American forces overthrew the "strong man of Iraq." *MSNBC reported in "The Secret War" that "as American armored columns pushed down the road to Baghdad, 400-watt loudspeakers mounted on Humvees would, from time to time, blare out in Arabic that Iraqi men are impotent." The Feyadeen, the article reported, could not bear to be taunted (especially about their manhood) and rushed out to attack . . . and be killed. “What you say is many times more important than what you do in this part of the world,” says a senior U.S. psy-warrior. The prison photos spoke volumes, but to the Arab resistance, it was a totally different message than the one heard on Capitol Hill on Friday. Whether intentional or not, the prison photos have sent a message about strength, dominance, and especially the power of women over men in a society that cannot bear such an inversion of "the proper order." It is a profound message. Has anyone noticed that we virtually walked into Najaf this week, unopposed? Al-Sadr did nothing---in fact, he moved his operations into the British zone, after all his bluster! Has anyone noticed that Fallujah is quiet? Very few roadside bombs/suicide bombs in the last couple of days. This could all change, but it is eerie that when a message of power is sent out all over the Middle East---unintentionally on our part---it resonates. Big time. Of course, for many reasons, some good and some bad, this episode will be investigated, and some heads will roll. But the Arab street will not take that as a sign of American or western-style "justice," rather it will interpret this as another psy-op campaign designed to conceal the real message---that American women are "stronger" than Middle Eastern men. XCHOUX answered on 05/10/04: Thanks for sharing this wonderful article. I agree with the assessment of Arab men. Their culture props up their "manhood" by opressing women. IN the western world, they are mostly no bodies. I have been so wacky over this whole situation. I think I am back on the right path again, whew!!! I'm 100% behind Rumsfeld and Bush and the conducting the war as they are doing. Just need to send more troops. And, again, thanks so much, my hair has been on fire for awhile now. Finally, today, I put it out!! lol CU Dude tomder55 rated this answer

Question/Answer

tomder55 asked on 02/03/04 - Chirac's Pandora's Box Ignoring the advice of many, the French government has just presented to the parliament a draft bill to prevent women from wearing the so-called "Islamic" headgear, or foulard, at state-owned schools. The move became inevitable when President Jacques Chirac, in a solemn address to the nation, televised live last December, presented the banning of the foulard as vital for the preservation of France's "secular character." Like other hasty moves in politics, this one, too, is likely to be subjected to the law of unintended consequences. Even before it becomes official and binding, Chirac's foulard policy has done some damage: It has divided France's Muslim community into pro- and anti-hijab camps. It has killed the recently established French Council of Islam, and enabled the most radical extremists to take center stage. It has given official recognition to the foulard as a religious icon, when Islam recognizes none and considers obsession with symbols as a sin. To win support for the ban on the foulard, Chirac dispatched emissaries to Arab capitals to seek fatwas from Muslim theologians. In one instance, Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy traveled to Cairo to secure a fatwa from the rector of al-Azhar, Muhammad Said al-Tantawi. This was a bizarre scene: a minister from a major Western democracy asking a Muslim mufti to give his blessing to a law that is supposed to defend French "secular values." This Pandora's Box has only just opened. Once the bill becomes law, possibly later this month, the authorities will face the task of spelling out what constitutes "ostentatious religious signs" that should be banned. The primary target, of course, is the foulard, but even that is not as easy as it might sound. There is no agreement, for example, on what constitutes an "ostentatious foulard." Would this include Hermes scarves, sold for $300 apiece? Should the colorful headgear worn by Berber and black African ladies also be banned? What if the girls appear at school with transparent headgear, designed by L'Oreal, which covers the hair without concealing it? And what about the hijab designed by Calvin Klein, which covers the hair but leaves the ears and the neck free to view? There is also the fluorescent horse-hair wig, including a blonde version, marketed by Iranian designers, that gives a woman a second head to expose to public view without revealing her own hair. With the focus on the foulard, the girls could also turn up wearing turbans of the kind once favored by Tallulah Bankhead and Marlene Dietrich. There are countless forms of hijab, all rooted in folklore and tribal traditions. Here are a few: burqaa, chador, chaqchur, kulaya, maqna'ah, niqab, purdah, picheh, rusari, rubandedh, sitrah, and tolqa. Is Mr. Chirac going to define them all before he can ban them? And what would happen if Muslims of the Sitri sect, originally from Baluchistan, appeared in their traditional gear, which consists of a white drape that covers the entire body of a man or a woman from head to toe, leaving only two holes for the eyes? (The Sitri rule is applied to both sexes from the age of four.) What's more, the new law's proponents will have to decide whether the it applies only to women. In a gesture of fake impartiality, the new law will also ban "large" Jewish skullcaps and "big" crosses. But what do "large" and "big" mean in this context? Would we have special agents measuring skullcaps and crosses at school gates? French Sikhs, who number 6,000, have already expressed concern that their traditional turbans may be banned. And what if France's 1.8 million Muslim schoolboys decided to wear turbans and/or kufia headgear, as is the fashion among Iranian mullahs and Arab tribesmen? And what about neckties? They are banned in Iran as "a sign of the cross" and in Saudi Arabia as a Zoroastrian symbol, smuggled into Islam by Jaafar Barmaki, the Persian vizier of the caliph Harun al-Rashid. Would France want to ban neckties as well? Then there is the vexing problem of beards. Islamist fundamentalists believe that a man who shaves ceases to be a "complete Muslim." Iran's President Muhammad Khatami claims that a man's beard is "a shield against impiety." France's Education Minister Luc Ferry has made it clear that the ban could include "some forms of the beard." But what forms? Will short beards and designer stubbles, of the kind once sported by Brad Pitt, be tolerated? Can those with a goatee or a Vandyke enter French schools? Or will we have agents posted at French schools to measure the pupils' facial growths, much like the Taliban did in their heyday in the bazaars of Kabul? (The Taliban wanted long beards, while Ferry wants short ones.) Minister Ferry may not know it, but the length of a man's hair could also be a religious symbol. Ferry himself, for example, wears his hair flowing down his neck. This conforms exactly to the style of the sect of Qalandars in Islam, who regard any shortening of a man's hair as "a step towards the fires of hell." The Sikhs are, of course, required by their faith never to cut their hair. What would Ferry do if hundreds of thousands of boys turned out at French schools with long hair, bushy beards, and "ostentatious" turbans? Even a lack of hair could be a religious symbol, as is the case with Buddhist monks. In Islam, too, many sects, including the Malamatis, shave their heads completely. As Jung observed decades ago, man's ability to invent symbols is limitless. Fighting symbols is, at best, a quixotic endeavor, and, at worst, a symptom of national self-doubt. — Amir Taheri is an Iranian-born author of ten books on the Middle East and Islam. He is reachable through www.benadorassociates.com. XCHOUX answered on 02/04/04: Good one, Tom! Like the Italians(who may disapear before the end of the millennium due to a negative birth rate), the French are faced with having to take severe measures to protect their distinctive French culture. (If I recall, they are at LEAST 20% Muslim)They are a secular society, like America, Germany, well, all western-Europe at the present time. I am for their protecting their long and distinguished culture against the menace of Islam. Islam has nothing to offer the world. My opinion. As for outward displays of religiosity, I think that the Chirac and France should go for it!. Religious Jewish men will be sans yamalka, Christian funamentalists will be baned from wearing large crosses and Muslin women from wearing religious head gear in public. France is not America. They actually have a decent culture to protect!!! But, anyway, I hope they are not overrun by Islam; it is barbaric. Cordially, Chou tomder55 rated this answer