Women: A Seemingly Ultimate Weapon In This War
This ain't tongus-in-cheek humor here. From our vast range of reading, it's all we can come up with. I'll explain in a moment, but there's a news story here from the Guardian that weaves a tale of Mahmoud Ahamdinejad at the Asian Games:
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, who flaunts his ideological fervour, has been accused of undermining Iran's Islamic revolution after television footage appeared to show him watching a female song and dance show.
The famously austere Mr Ahmadinejad has been criticised by his own allies after attending the lavish opening ceremony of the Asian games in Qatar, a sporting competition involving 13,000 athletes from 39 countries. The ceremony featured Indian and Egyptian dancers and female vocalists. Many were not wearing veils.
Women are forbidden to sing and dance before a male audience under Iran's Islamic legal code. Officials are expected to excuse themselves from such engagements when abroad but TV pictures showed Mr Ahmadinejad sitting with President Bashar Assad of Syria and Ismail Haniya, the Palestinian prime minister, during last Friday's ceremony in Doha.
Religious fundamentalists, usually Mr Ahmadinejad's keenest supporters, are asking why he attended a ceremony that violated his own government's strict interpretation of Shia Islam.
The Baztab website, considered close to Mohsen Rezaee, a former revolutionary guard commander with links to powerful sections of Iran's political hierarchy, said Mr Ahmadinejad's presence had offended Shias in Iran and elsewhere. "The failure of Ahmadinejad to object and his constant presence has damaged the image of Iran's Islamic revolution and its commitment to Islamic rules in contrast with the Arab countries in the Gulf," it said.
The president's aides insist he was not present during the singing and dancing. His press secretary, Ali Akbar Javanfekr, claimed Mr Ahmadinejad had left for Doha airport before the performance.
However, Baztab posted footage which purported to show Mr Ahmadinejad in his seat after the show. Jalal Yahyazadeh, a rightwing MP, said: "We have heard from some sources that Ahmadinejad was in the stadium at the time. Those who created the conditions for his presence should be investigated as quickly as possible."
OK, here's the ultimate weapons part: Why do they fear women so much? They bury them under layers upon layers of cloth, hide their faces, forbid them to speak, forbid them to think and act for themselves, etc. It's almost as though,to them, women represent some sort of evil incarnation. Which I fail to grasp whatsoever. As a newly married man--hitched to the beautiful and talented woman on this site (no, not Sabrina)--I fail to grasp where my wife could be anything but pure. She isn't like the street hussies we see walkig around town, and she is very modest. She's not trapped under ten layers of cloth, and her gorgeous face isn't hidden from view.
I just don't get this. I don't see why his people are up in arms about this. Mohammed himself had many wives, and more than one was under what civilized society deems the age of consent. That is the direction the Islamofascists want to go; a return to the heady days of the prophet himself. And yet they cannot tolerate women who are 100% in touch with every aspect of their own beings. Hypocrisy comes to mind when they can enjoy some of the pleasures of women--in private--and yet barely register women to be that above an animal. Many don't consider women above the place of an animal, and abuse them more than they do an animal. Another aspect I can't seem to fathom about them.
We are told that if we want to understand our enemy, we have to learn what we can from him. But what happens when they do things that don't make sense. I'm in the process of reading The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright now that my radiant wife has finished it, and the same thing occurs in that book. Thus far, every major person brough up in that book--except for al-Zawahiri's father and bin Laden's father--have been repulsed by women. Mostly due to their Western style of dress (that being, they're not covered or modest enough for their tastes), but they literally do feel threatened by the female gender.
And we in the West feel that women are not only equal to men in many respects, but at times (my wife especially) exceed us in many respects. (Look, I'm not putting myself down here. I'm better than Marcie in many areas, but she can claim equal status in other realms that I'm not good in; this is what makes us a good "team," and one that the Left despises.) But from where I stand, Ahmadinejad and his own critics need to lighten up a bit. So he watched a bunch of dancing girls on a stage in the opening ceremonies of the Asian Games. Good for him. It's not like they were naked or anything. His critics are bringing this up because it's either A) a slow news day in Tehran, and someone fel the need to complain, or B) they're ticked these women weren't wearing burlap sacks, and peeking through a set of eyeholes like some weird child on Halloween. Either way, I find this story amusing.
Their religious beliefs are so intolerant of anything and everything, and yet the Left in this country shrieked when the president invokes the name of God ina speech; claiming we live in a theocracy. Those poor slobs have no clue what a theocracy is, or what such a society id capable of. Take a look at Iran, and tell me that's normal. We're conservatives around The Asylum, but Iran's "conservative view" stems from Koran, and is so tight that we--this wonderful trio of nuts right here--look like flaming, hedonistic liberals. Let them criticize him, if that's what they want to do. Myself? I'd rather keep reminding the world that this nut is hurtling towards getting nuclear weapons, and that should be the foremost thing on people's minds about Ahmadinejad right now. Not whether he was in two places at once (which is what his news agency is trying to spin) or whether he sat there and enjoyed the opening ceremonies.
If the guy decided to partake in ALL of the opening ceremonies, it's not a big dealk, and harldy newsworthy. What is interesting about this story is the fact that out of every enemy radical Islam has in this world, they have chosen females to be the biggest threat to them. They seem unable to master a female's wiles. And perhaps that's the worst rub about this. Whereas they look at women as little more than cattle, we look at them as a partner in life; married to us, they stand as a rock soild support mechanism in our lives, and a strong ally. Even the unmarried women in America are strong, independent, and perfectly capable of holding their own. And that might be why they prefer subservient women; they're afraid that in the eyes of those around them--peers, friends, and family--they might appear weak when beside a much stronger wife. In our society that isn't a bane, it's a boon, and it's a lesson we learned a long time ago.
Publius II
This ain't tongus-in-cheek humor here. From our vast range of reading, it's all we can come up with. I'll explain in a moment, but there's a news story here from the Guardian that weaves a tale of Mahmoud Ahamdinejad at the Asian Games:
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, who flaunts his ideological fervour, has been accused of undermining Iran's Islamic revolution after television footage appeared to show him watching a female song and dance show.
The famously austere Mr Ahmadinejad has been criticised by his own allies after attending the lavish opening ceremony of the Asian games in Qatar, a sporting competition involving 13,000 athletes from 39 countries. The ceremony featured Indian and Egyptian dancers and female vocalists. Many were not wearing veils.
Women are forbidden to sing and dance before a male audience under Iran's Islamic legal code. Officials are expected to excuse themselves from such engagements when abroad but TV pictures showed Mr Ahmadinejad sitting with President Bashar Assad of Syria and Ismail Haniya, the Palestinian prime minister, during last Friday's ceremony in Doha.
Religious fundamentalists, usually Mr Ahmadinejad's keenest supporters, are asking why he attended a ceremony that violated his own government's strict interpretation of Shia Islam.
The Baztab website, considered close to Mohsen Rezaee, a former revolutionary guard commander with links to powerful sections of Iran's political hierarchy, said Mr Ahmadinejad's presence had offended Shias in Iran and elsewhere. "The failure of Ahmadinejad to object and his constant presence has damaged the image of Iran's Islamic revolution and its commitment to Islamic rules in contrast with the Arab countries in the Gulf," it said.
The president's aides insist he was not present during the singing and dancing. His press secretary, Ali Akbar Javanfekr, claimed Mr Ahmadinejad had left for Doha airport before the performance.
However, Baztab posted footage which purported to show Mr Ahmadinejad in his seat after the show. Jalal Yahyazadeh, a rightwing MP, said: "We have heard from some sources that Ahmadinejad was in the stadium at the time. Those who created the conditions for his presence should be investigated as quickly as possible."
OK, here's the ultimate weapons part: Why do they fear women so much? They bury them under layers upon layers of cloth, hide their faces, forbid them to speak, forbid them to think and act for themselves, etc. It's almost as though,to them, women represent some sort of evil incarnation. Which I fail to grasp whatsoever. As a newly married man--hitched to the beautiful and talented woman on this site (no, not Sabrina)--I fail to grasp where my wife could be anything but pure. She isn't like the street hussies we see walkig around town, and she is very modest. She's not trapped under ten layers of cloth, and her gorgeous face isn't hidden from view.
I just don't get this. I don't see why his people are up in arms about this. Mohammed himself had many wives, and more than one was under what civilized society deems the age of consent. That is the direction the Islamofascists want to go; a return to the heady days of the prophet himself. And yet they cannot tolerate women who are 100% in touch with every aspect of their own beings. Hypocrisy comes to mind when they can enjoy some of the pleasures of women--in private--and yet barely register women to be that above an animal. Many don't consider women above the place of an animal, and abuse them more than they do an animal. Another aspect I can't seem to fathom about them.
We are told that if we want to understand our enemy, we have to learn what we can from him. But what happens when they do things that don't make sense. I'm in the process of reading The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright now that my radiant wife has finished it, and the same thing occurs in that book. Thus far, every major person brough up in that book--except for al-Zawahiri's father and bin Laden's father--have been repulsed by women. Mostly due to their Western style of dress (that being, they're not covered or modest enough for their tastes), but they literally do feel threatened by the female gender.
And we in the West feel that women are not only equal to men in many respects, but at times (my wife especially) exceed us in many respects. (Look, I'm not putting myself down here. I'm better than Marcie in many areas, but she can claim equal status in other realms that I'm not good in; this is what makes us a good "team," and one that the Left despises.) But from where I stand, Ahmadinejad and his own critics need to lighten up a bit. So he watched a bunch of dancing girls on a stage in the opening ceremonies of the Asian Games. Good for him. It's not like they were naked or anything. His critics are bringing this up because it's either A) a slow news day in Tehran, and someone fel the need to complain, or B) they're ticked these women weren't wearing burlap sacks, and peeking through a set of eyeholes like some weird child on Halloween. Either way, I find this story amusing.
Their religious beliefs are so intolerant of anything and everything, and yet the Left in this country shrieked when the president invokes the name of God ina speech; claiming we live in a theocracy. Those poor slobs have no clue what a theocracy is, or what such a society id capable of. Take a look at Iran, and tell me that's normal. We're conservatives around The Asylum, but Iran's "conservative view" stems from Koran, and is so tight that we--this wonderful trio of nuts right here--look like flaming, hedonistic liberals. Let them criticize him, if that's what they want to do. Myself? I'd rather keep reminding the world that this nut is hurtling towards getting nuclear weapons, and that should be the foremost thing on people's minds about Ahmadinejad right now. Not whether he was in two places at once (which is what his news agency is trying to spin) or whether he sat there and enjoyed the opening ceremonies.
If the guy decided to partake in ALL of the opening ceremonies, it's not a big dealk, and harldy newsworthy. What is interesting about this story is the fact that out of every enemy radical Islam has in this world, they have chosen females to be the biggest threat to them. They seem unable to master a female's wiles. And perhaps that's the worst rub about this. Whereas they look at women as little more than cattle, we look at them as a partner in life; married to us, they stand as a rock soild support mechanism in our lives, and a strong ally. Even the unmarried women in America are strong, independent, and perfectly capable of holding their own. And that might be why they prefer subservient women; they're afraid that in the eyes of those around them--peers, friends, and family--they might appear weak when beside a much stronger wife. In our society that isn't a bane, it's a boon, and it's a lesson we learned a long time ago.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 7:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home