Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts

Sunday, September 11, 2011

A Libertarian Vent: Do You Remember 9/11? I Do.

I found the following essay as I was reading various articles about 9/11. It was written last year on 9/11 by a young man who writes as J-Victus on his blog called "A Libertarian Vent." His understanding of why 9/11 really happened impressed me and I wanted to share it with you...

DO YOU REMEMBER 9/11? I DO.by J-Victus

I was a child when a gorgeous Tuesday morning turned into a day of confusion, fear, and anguish. In an English class, the intercom from the front office called me down for an unexpected "doctor's appointment." No school? Great. I walked with a spring in my step down to the office and as I walked out with my mother, her face turned grimmer than when I first saw her and she said, "I won't keep you in the dark. The Twin Towers have been destroyed. We're under attack." In the mid-90s, my family visited the Windows on the World restaurant a few times.

I immediately imagined the people who were up there, and my worldview expanded in a day from Pokemon and yo-yo's to international relations. As I listened to George Bush acknowledge the day's tragedy, I was enraptured with the response he promised to deliver to these killers. I was suddenly an ardent kill-em-all neocon that would make Terry Jones blush. From here I derived a fun motto: "I am a recovered neocon. I was in puberty, what's your excuse?"

Until into 2004, I was aggressive, anti-Muslim, and unapologetically pro-Bush. But I am not an idiot. No WMDs were found. Call me crazy, but that was the reason we were given to invade in the first place. As I watched my elder Americans fall for the script rewrite that declared the objective of the war to be the liberation of the Iraqi people, an anti-government sentiment brewed in me and grew more intense with the week.

I regret only that it took until nearly the end of high school to solidify this universally anti-war position. I wish I could have warned more of my peers about the evils of empire because I did not and do not want to see anyone from my formative years die for our criminal overlords. But it is happening, and will likely get worse.

I find it deeply disturbing that my peers are choosing to enter the military in such a day and age. Two recent enlistments are college just-graduates who cannot find jobs in their area of study. Their case is not unique, but is actually a deliberate policy by the criminals in Washington. Known as military Keynesianism, it is the program of offering the military as an "employer of last resort" during economic downturns. The scum who pursue this despicable strategy then tout the lower unemployment rate.

It's a diverse bunch that are going to fight. Another is a former party girl who just recently left for Iraq. Another notable classmate is a young man whose father was killed in the Twin Towers. He is now a skilled marine sniper. His anger is perfectly understandable. I cannot imagine losing a father so young.

But our feelings have no bearing on facts, not even grief. Nine years on, I would tell this young man that the best way to honor his father's memory is to ask and understand why the attack that killed him happened. Warmongers framed the debate in the early years to make it seem that those who questioned aggressive policies were unpatriotic. While emotionally effective in a traumatized nation, it is typical neocon nonsense. Police always investigate the motive of a crime. That does not mean they sympathize with the killing! It's just good detective work.

Osama bin Laden himself told us why he ordered the 9/11 strikes: "Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple: Because you attacked us and continue to attack us...Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands." When he was ignored, he implored Americans to listen to their own intelligence community, which concluded that bin Laden was not lying to himself or to Americans when he explained his motives. It is impossible to leave an honest examination of the facts and history with a pro-war position because a look at reality shows unambiguously that the blame for this strife falls squarely on the United States government.

Yes, America started it. While the Bush gang decries "blaming America for everything," it doesn't change the fact that many terrible events are the fault of American policies. It shouldn't boggle the mind too much. We have a worldwide Empire, and imperial actions will have consequences.

Again and in caps: YES, AMERICA STARTED THIS WAR. Is it not obvious that before the 1950s, the Muslim world had either friendly or no relations with the US (except for the Barbary Pirates, who were a problem because they were pirates, not because they were Muslims)? What changed this? Our coup in Iran in 1953. It is a fact of history that the once-arrogant and warmongering British, who were watching their Empire disintegrate in the aftermath of WWII, came whining to the CIA about some kind of communist revolt in Iran when they asserted control over their oil. In response, Operation Ajax overthrew the popular government and installed the tyrannical and hated Shah (just another one of "our bastards"), ensuring continued western control of the oil supply. Of course, the Iranians are a powerful people, not to be underestimated, and they took their nation back not 30 years later.

The aftermath of Operation Ajax was ever-widening US intervention in Muslim countries (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon, on and on) and unbending support for Israel, which made the Zionist regime all the more aggressive. Deepening parallel to the expanding meddling was Muslim anger seething against the interference. Is this unjustified? How would we react to foreign interference in the United States? What if our nation was occupied (By some army vast enough)? Would we not expect Americans to form militias and build improvised explosive devices? The most patriotic Americans would put the foreign soldiers through daily hell. The longer the occupation lasted, the more angry Americans would get, and with it their capacity for violence would grow. Is anyone deluded enough to think the American people have some unique moral buffer that would restrain the viciousness of any response? In the final months of WWII, AT LEAST 300,000 Japanese civilians (<---read boiled.="" br="" canals="" incinerated.="" that="" the="" were="">
Indeed, the March 9-10 Firebombing of Tokyo was deadlier than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Don't make me laugh and say that Americans would show an ounce of mercy to occupiers in their own backyard. Americans are humans and humans are violent, especially angry humans.

Of course foreign-occupied Americans would become enraged, and their actions would mirror that rage. They would kidnap occupying soldiers. They would torture and murder them on video and release the tapes to terrify all others. Don't deny it, my friend. Insurgency fights not the physical army face-to-face, but attempts a deeper assault on the will of its members. Insurgents who fight occupations seek to terrorize the troops who walk on their land. Therefore, it should not be shocking that Iraqi and Afghan insurgents are terrorizing US troops who walk on their land.

Especially since, lest you forget, America started it. Whether we want it or not, blood is on our hands because our tax dollars paid for every bomb that has hit a wedding and every bullet that has ended some bystander's life. And while the blood of those 3000 Americans is on the Al-Qaida thugs who murdered them, also to blame are the officeholders and lobbyists who pursued the unnecessary, stupid, and evil policies that made the attack possible in the first place.

So many Americans see 9/11 as some kind of declaration of war that came out of nowhere. This would be news to millions of Middle Easterners whose memory includes 50 years of American intervention. 9/11 was retaliation. It may be hard to accept--indeed it seems that some Americans (Especially those named Hannity, Bolton, or Limbaugh) are simply incapable by nature of accepting this truth--but it is historical fact that five decades of American intervention preceded the destruction of the Twin Towers. While the neocons speak of spreading democracy, all they really spread is bullshit (Sorry! Not really...) to obscure historical truths that cannot be refuted, but can most certainly be ignored to pursue more war. They have been ignored since the 1950s, they were ignored on September 11th, 2001, and they continue to be ignored as the stupidest war in American history --and likely our last-- is in the making.

So yes, remember 9/11, remember the victims. But the most important thing to remember is why. As I sat in confusion and fear watching over and over the images of devastation that ravaged our country, I asked,"Why?" like millions of my fellow Americans. The answer should be obvious. The CIA explained it and Osama answered us as well. Why were we attacked? Because we attack.

And our countrymen only died in vain if we ensure others will share their fate.

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

It's Not "Lady-Like!"



A
n investigation is underway regarding a shocking and controversial sporting competition that was held recently here in Jeddah. Shocking? Yes - because the event was for females (for shame!) and the event organizers failed to obtain prior approval from the Ministry of Education. Which begs the question: Are male sporting events subject to the same restrictions? Somehow I doubt it. Female sports here in Saudi Arabia are practically non-existent because girls’ athletics are frowned upon by religious clerics and many old-fashioned Saudi men as being “unlady-like,” among other ridiculous reasons.

The illegal and contentious sporting event – thought to be the first of its kind in the Kingdom - was held on December 8th at Effat University and included competition in such unlady-like sports such as swimming, basketball, and badminton for some 200 young high school women representing six different Jeddah girls’ schools.

In the aftermath of the tournament, a member of the Board of Directors of one of the participating schools claims they had received more than 60 “anonymous” complaints about girls participating in sports.




All this commotion comes at the heels of another report out of Iran where a Muslim cleric condemned women’s sports and forbade Iranian females from participating in the Asian Games. He was quoted as saying that women’s sports are a product of the West’s “dirty” culture and should be shunned. I want to know, exactly what is “dirty” about women’s sports?

This is 2010, almost 2011. It is common knowledge in this day and age that regular exercise promotes good health, weight control, and a sense of well-being. Yet for the girls and women of the kingdom, these facts don’t matter and aren’t considered important.

Last year I wrote about how the government cracked down on women’s gyms across Saudi Arabia, closing down countless women’s facilities if they were not properly licensed and if they were not affiliated with a hospital, while there are no such restrictions placed on men’s gyms. The closing of these facilities drove up membership costs and made it impossible for many Saudi women to be able to afford going to a gym. And it’s already hard enough for women to try to exercise in this country as it is. Women here are forbidden from swimming (well they can, if they are fully covered), riding bicycles (too provocative as it reveals the female's behind), or playing sports in public. Saudi Arabia has been long criticized for denying Saudi women from particpating in the Olympics and other sporting events.




Physical Education classes in girls’ schools are a very low priority. You won’t believe some of the ludicrous reasons given for why girls shouldn’t be allowed to participate in sports or exercise in school: The female hymen might break during exercise so the girl wouldn’t be considered a virgin anymore. “Good girls” would never disrobe outside their own home, not even to change into gym clothes at school. If girls did disrobe in front of other girls at school, they might get turned on and have nasty thoughts that they may want to act upon. I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried!

All this craziness aside, women’s obesity is becoming a major health crisis here in Saudi Arabia, evident in the dramatic increases in diabetes, hypertension, depression, and other weight-related health issues. For the most part, women here lead a very sedentary lifestyle – many don’t even do any physical household chores because they have maids.

This antiquated mindset of restricting women from exercise and sports places Saudi Arabia way behind the times in promoting women’s health and well-being.

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Cleavage = Earthquakes! Suntans = Jail!

I
try not to talk about religion very much on this blog because it is such a volatile topic that people get really worked up over - and I am clearly no expert in this department. I read and hear so many different and conflicting interpretations all the time, it's difficult to decipher "what is" and "what isn't" when it comes to religion. People believe so many different things and always seem to make it so complicated, when it shouldn't be. And then when I ask questions because I don't understand, some people think I'm being disrespectful - when I really just want answers. So it is with trepidation that I write this post.



Recently, however, there were a few news reports coming out of the Middle East regarding religion that I found were just begging for questions to be asked.

Sheikh Ahmed Al-GhamdiFirst, one of the most significant stories concerns Sheikh Ahmed Al-Ghamdi (right), the head of the Makkah religious police, who has come out with a few extremely controversial comments regarding traditional Saudi Islamic behavior. The Sheikh is preaching that gender segregation is not supported by Islam and that it represents cultural extremism as it is practiced in Saudi Arabia. The other issues the Sheikh has made waves about recently concern the enforced closings of businesses during prayer times and men praying in the mosques together. Al-Ghamdi says that businesses should not be required to close during each of the five daily prayers. He went further to say that nothing in the religion says that men must pray the daily prayers together in groups at the mosques. I like this guy! I really like him!

At the very least, Sheikh Al-Ghamdi has ruffled the feathers of the religious police in KSA, as he works for them and it is their job to enforce these religious ideals that Al-Ghamdi now claims are unnecessary. His liberal statements are totally out of sync with those of the mostly conservative religious scholars in KSA. Other religious clerics have slammed Al-Ghamdi for his heretical remarks and some people have called for his dismissal or even death. It was initially reported that Al-Ghamdi was relieved of his duties, but within a very short time that statement was retracted allegedly due to intervention from someone within the royal family. Al-Ghamdi's fate at this point is not clear. To read more about this controversy, please see Saudi Woman's opinion piece called "The Man of the Hour."

Photo Credit: AFP/GETTY - King Abdullah and Crown Prince Sultan of Saudi Arabia pose with Saudi womenMore repercussions have surfaced in the wake of Al-Ghamdi's remarks when a group photo of Saudi women with the King and the Crown Prince of KSA made headlines around the world of late, further fueling the fiery flap on the issue of gender mixing. The profound significance of this photo is that it seems to indicate that on the highest level here in Saudi Arabia, opinions are changing about men and women socially mixing together. Another kicker is that most of the women in the photo are not wearing the traditional face veil (called niqaab) that a large percentage of Saudi women always wear when out in public. Indeed religious police in KSA have scolded many women for not having their faces covered.

Sheikh Abdul Rahman Al-BarrakBut then, on the other side of this gender mixing tug-of-war, in this article in Arab News, you have this Saudi religious cleric, Abdul Rahman Al-Barrak (right), urging that "modernists" be ignored. He said that "liberalization of women was one of the major outcomes of the enemies’ plots" and decries gender mixing as "keys for evil."

Another news making story came out of Iran when a religious cleric there blamed earthquakes on women who did not dress modestly. Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi was quoted as saying, “Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which consequently increases earthquakes.” You know, I was okay with what he said until those last four words...


I have a feeling that this guy is just basing his statement on the fact that seismologists have been saying for 20 years that there is a high likelihood that Tehran, the country's capital city, will be hit by a major earthquake in the near future. Interestingly enough, Tehran sits amidst dozens of fault lines, yet has not suffered a major earthquake for 180 years. I'll bet that when and if the earthquake happens, Sedighi just can't wait to say, "See? I told you so!" and of course, women will be blamed for the natural disaster!


And now, in expectations of this earthquake blame game, women are already being punished - just in case - in Iran. It has been announced that women sporting suntans will be arrested! Why? Because it violates Islamic values - what?

Do people REALLY believe stuff like scantily dressed women cause earthquakes? Seriously? If you know of any scientific explanation, please fill me in.

Are there other places, outside the Muslim world, where religious police ensure that women are dressed modestly enough and if they're not, they can be sharply hit about the ankles with a stick or suffer other consequences? Or where men are rounded up at prayer time to go pray?

How exactly is a woman with a "healthy glow" violating religious values - especially if it is not known where/how/or with whom she got the suntan in the first place? Do YOU agree that having a suntan is a valid offense that someone should be arrested for?


Do other religions around the world even HAVE religious police that make sure its followers behave "morally" according to the religion?

Should religion be FORCED on people? Are Muslims in KSA "enslaved" by religion? Since there is "no compulsion in Islam," why do people in KSA not have a "choice" of whether they want to be Muslim or not? Why do I always hear and read that there is "no compulsion in Islam," yet clearly here in KSA, that is not the case? And why, too, is it even necessary for there to be religious police here in the first place, especially since there is supposedly "no compulsion in Islam?" What does it say about a religion that needs religious police to enforce its religious doctrines? And isn't that considered "compulsion?"

I've asked a lot of questions here - I invite civilized, respectful discussion, without attacks and insults, please...

Monday, October 19, 2009

The Stoning of Soraya M

The Stoning of Soraya M is a powerful movie based on a best-selling book that leaves the viewer in utter disbelief that something like this true story could actually happen in real life. That supposedly pious men can get away with such barbaric behavior and not be held accountable for bringing about the demise and the death of an innocent woman in a male dominated Islamic country is beyond comprehension.



Soraya has been married for twenty years to her abusive jerk of a husband. Together they have four children, two sons and two daughters. The sons are obviously favored by the father who teaches his sons that it is a man's world and that women are much lesser creatures that should be treated like servants. In Islam men are allowed up to four wives, as long as each wife is treated equally. But since her husband cannot afford to support two wives and he doesn't want to pay her alimony, he decides he just wants to be rid of Soraya, no matter what it takes. Since Soraya refuses to give her husband a divorce so he can marry the 14 year old girl that he fancies, he hatches a plan to falsely accuse her of adultery.

The men of the small dusty remote Iranian village in the desolate mountains of Iran go along with his evil plot to destroy his wife, falsely accusing her of adultery, holding a mock trial, and convicting her based on the word of a man who was threatened with death if he did not cooperate. The story is eerily reminiscent of the Salem witch trials, where the actions of a few provoke maniacal mob mentality into the masses against one of their own. Even Soraya's own father took part in the proceedings and denounced her publicly once she was convicted and sentenced to death by stoning. The movie is graphic and the scenes where Soraya is stoned to death are very difficult to watch. She suffers a horrendous, agonizing death.

It will come as no surprise that the book which tells Soraya's story, written by the French journalist of Iranian descent, Freidoune Sahebjam, was banned in Iran because it portrays the Iranian legal system in such a negative light. The Stoning of Soraya M is an important and extraordinary story that needed to be told.

Thankfully Soraya's story is NOT the norm for Muslim marriages. But what IS the norm about her story is that most Muslim marriages are not an equal partnership, instead deferring the power in the relationship to the man, and consequently, blame for any problems in the marriage on the woman. Men tend to wear the pants in the family in many marriages around the world - I'm not saying that this is unique to Islamic marriages. But it does seem as though in Islamic countries, women are always guilty or wrong, and men are always innocent or right. For example, when a woman is raped in an Islamic country, generally she is believed to have brought it on herself so she will be punished, while the man is often thought to be justified in his actions. Honor killings always target females and are committed by male relatives. Female children are still sold by their own fathers to perverted old men, oftentimes to settle a debt or to give the family a financial boost. Sometimes Shariah law can appear to be unfair, unjust, inhumane, or violent to women or girls.

The Muslim world still seems to have a long way to go in the area of women's rights...

For more information, please read an in-depth post about The Stoning of Soraya at the blog Sand Gets in My Eyes.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Photography Can Be Hazardous ...


I  take many photos in Saudi Arabia, and I publish many of them on both of my blogs - this one and my photo blog which is called Jeddah Daily Photo. Many people, especially women in this country, are very private and come close to freaking out when they see a camera. Women here have been blackmailed by men who may have obtained a photo of a woman whose hair is not properly covered or if she is wearing normal clothing and some of her skin shows. In most normal societies, these innocent photos would not be cause for alarm and certainly not a reason for blackmail. But in a restrictive place like Saudi Arabia, regular photos like these of a woman, if landing in the wrong hands, could bring shame on the woman and her family, and her husband might even divorce her because of it. This cultural phenomenon gives great power to slimy bad guys, many of whom might usually demand sex, or sometimes money, as their blackmail payment.


The methods for how a man might obtain photos of this nature can vary. Modern technology such as camera phones and blue tooth are one way. Some men might deliberately prey on vulnerable women and sweet talk their way into getting the woman into a compromising position. Or perhaps the woman began to trust an individual and she may herself have emailed him a photo of herself. There have been cases where a woman was raped by a disgruntled acquaintance and even a case where it resulted in a woman being killed by her own male family members because of the shame brought upon the family. It is also not unusual for a woman to be sentenced to lashes as well for being guilty of putting herself in the position where photos of her got into the wrong hands.


I'm happy to report that in recent times the Saudi government responded by enacting stiff laws with severe penalties that have been put in place to protect women from blackmailing predators. The thing is, though, that these laws wouldn't be necessary if seeing a woman's hair or skin wasn't considered so taboo in the first place. Islamic law dictates that women must dress modestly. Dressing modestly in KSA is way more restrictive on women than in most other Islamic countries. There are many places where Muslim women do not cover their hair and where they are considered modestly dressed even if skin on their forearms or necks are showing. And what's even worse is that despite the laws that now protect women from blackmailers, many people still place the blame on the woman for allowing a photo of her showing her hair or some skin to get out in the first place. Naivete, foolishness, or a simple mistake can ruin a woman's reputation and possibly her life.


On a different note, it is believed that a blogger/photojournalist from Iran may be in jail. Amir may have been arrested as he took photos of the demonstrations in the streets of Iran that have been going on in protest of the questionable results of the presidential election that took place there on June 12. He has published some incredible photos of the demonstrations on his website called Tehran 24 and access to his blog has been blocked from viewing within Iran. For more photos of what has been going on in Iran, you can also check out this site.


Amir is not the first Iranian blogger to have simply disappeared without a trace. There have been several in recent years, and one even died in custody a few months ago. It is clear that the country of Iran does not have freedom of speech or freedom of the press.


In this part of the world, taking photos or simply having your photo taken can be hazardous to your well being ...