![]() |
I think I learned something today.
I used to believe the reason Muslim women covered their hair was due to a religious argument about "the excessively excitable, sexual nature of men" ... that is, because men just could not handle the sight of a woman's hair and stay in control of their sexual urges. As of this morning, I don't believe that any more. After reading several articles found by Google searches, it seems there is a multitude of reasons Muslim women cover their hair, none of which have to do with such silliness. Here is an article that presents 17 reasons Muslim women cover their hair, especially in the diasporic Western communities. I have the feeling now it's more akin to a Christian woman wearing a cross on a necklace in public... |
I once had a woman from the UAE assert to me that many women prefer widespread burka use... because the anonymity made things like extramarital affairs a snap, since no one could tell if it was his wife or his lover entering the house.
|
I imagine that in a society that doesn't respect women, the ability to hide might actually be empowering.
|
Perhaps, in the way that spitting in your master's drink might be empowering. Not taking issue with your comment, UT, because it's true. Just not the type of empowerment one would hope for.
|
It is being reported that the Vatican has opened an new embassy in Miramar,
and is issuing a joint Statement with China regarding their forthcoming talks, concerning changes in they will implement in the U.S. after the 2016 elections when it is anticipated that all traditional Republicans will have been replaced by newly elected TP congressmen. All US embassy personnel in China-ruled countries are being withdrawn. President Obama has issued a public statement in which the U.S. will boycott all such talks unless the U.S. controls the talks and the State Department, under the direction of Ambassador John Kerrym is in charge. <snip> Oh wait, wait. It's the Taliban (not the Vatican) and the U.S. (not China) that are having the talks, and President Karzi (not Obama) that is boycotting the meetings.... Nevermind. |
1 Attachment(s)
Although I've heard many times that certain of the Gitmo prisoners are of greater "concern",
I don't think I've seen before who they are and what they are accused of doing. Now, this business of the Taliban opening an "office" in Quatar exposes some of it, made possible by the Wikileaks data exposed by Pfc. Bradley Manning. Attachment 44421 NY Times CHARLIE SAVAGE June 20, 2013 Negotiations With Taliban Could Hinge on Detainees Quote:
|
Not really Afghanistan, but still like Afghanistan
... Or is more akin to an October Surprise ? Bloomberg Nicole Gaouette & David Lerman Aug 3, 2013 Al-Qaeda Threat Cited by U.S. in Issuing Global Travel Alert Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
The warning surfaced as President Barack Obama’s administration argues
that National Security Agency surveillance programs are essential to fight terrorist threats. My gut says this is the biggest factor. |
Quote:
|
Well guys, if you've paid attention to my posts in the past, I don't much like arm chair quarterbacks and as such am on my way to Afghanistan. I'm not anyone important, a cog in the wheel so to speak. I'll give you my take on events as they unfold form my little corner of the country. At least as much as the operational environment will allow me to post. I don't think that travel alert applies to me.
|
Be safe regular.Joe.
|
Watch your step over there Joe. Come back safe.
|
We'll be thinking of you, Joe.
|
I dunno. Talk about being in thrall to the enemy.
There is taking reasonable precautions and there is allowing empty words to affect day to day lives. Pretty much every time I've switched on the news (generally mealtimes, although I listen to a rolling news radio station too) they mention threats, Embassy closures, people being brought home. The IRA used a code word when they issued threats. That didn't work either, because empty threats are very cheap for terrorists and cause maximum disruption. But to be fair to the IRA they were far more about killing than anything else. Manchester for example, not enough time or information to clear the two sites, glass and debris raining down within a half mile radius. Don't worry, although there were "buildings torn to shreds as though made of papier mache; water pouring out of twisted structures as though they had been crushed; holes pockmarked over building facades as though teams of demolition men had been trying to knock them down" only 65 innocent people with no connection to the politics of Northern Ireland were hurt. ETA - Joe, I'm just on my usual hobbyhorse and none of the above applies to you! Over the years I've met family and friends of squaddies who were in Northern Ireland and they were as far removed from the views of "movers and shakers" as I suspect you are. You simply have my support as a person. |
Sunday, I'm in sympathy with your thinking.
Two guys talk on the telephone, and Osama Bin Laden gets what he wanted all along... I've followed many of the news reports, and they all repeat the same non sequiturs: " specifics are vague " But look at it this way, it's a WIN/WIN situation for the N.S.A.. If nothing happens: " NSA reports thwarting terrorist attack " If something happens: " NSA successfully predicts terrorist attack " |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:02 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.