Deadbeat American Feminists Abandon Iraqi Women and Children

[Jedi Knight]

Tammy Bruce, the former radical feminist and now cool conservative, spells it out (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6558) in this article about the American radical leftist matriarchal feminist abandonment of Iraqi women and children.

You just have to celebrate Tammy Bruce's accurate quote from the article: "Um Haydar is just one of thousands of women who have been raped, tortured and murdered in front of their families. Think of Um’s children, her daughters, whom you have abandoned. Then go to sleep at night and pray to God that the dead can’t really invade your dreams because there are thousands of dead Iraqi women who know how you betray them, in the name of politics, in the name of hating George W. Bush, in the name of your own cynical political hypocrisy." -- end quote.

Tammy simply rocks.

JK

[Denise]

I had to laugh at "Susan Sarandan one of our more empty vessels."

I would like to see the feminists take more time on issues such as FGM, instead of trying to get physical standards lowered so women can be firefighters etc.

[Q-Source]

Jedi,


Jesuschrist, you are so intellectually dishonest. This is the full quote (without any bias):

For Ms. Walker, Ms. Garafalo, NOW, and every other unconscious and misguided feminist who thinks that removing Saddam is ‘immoral,’ remember Um Haydar is just one of thousands of women who have been raped, tortured and murdered in front of their families. Think of Um’s children, her daughters, whom you have abandoned. Then go to sleep at night and pray to God that the dead can’t really invade your dreams because there are thousands of dead Iraqi women who know how you betray them, in the name of politics, in the name of hating George W. Bush, in the name of your own cynical political hypocrisy.

In other words, just because feminists are against the war against Iraq, you conclude that they are responsible for the attrocities that are comitted against iraqi women.

This is false. With or without feminists, violence against women in Iraq will continue.

Q-S

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Q-Source
This is false. With or without feminists, violence against women in Iraq will continue.

Q-S

Logic fallacy. That is like saying "with or without police, violence against women in Iraq will continue."

The radical feminists abandoned millions of Iraqi women and children just because they don't like the president. That is how rotten feminists are.

Also, that sentence you added from the article doesn't change the meaning of what Tammy said, whatsoever. That is why I didn't bother to include it and why I also linked the article so you could read it. Nice spin, but again, snake-eyes.

JK

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Logic fallacy. That is like saying "with or without police, violence against women in Iraq will continue."

So, are you saying that feminists (from other countries) are responsible for the safety of iraqi women in Iraq?. That is utterly absurd.


The radical feminists abandoned millions of Iraqi women and children just because they don't like the president. That is how rotten feminists are.

What they were supposed to do then? They are free to move, whenever they want.


Also, that sentence you added from the article doesn't change the meaning of what Tammy said, whatsoever. That is why I didn't bother to include it and why I also linked the article so you could read it. Nice spin, but again, snake-eyes.

It changes a lot because, they are protesting against the war, they don't want more violence for that women and children. If they left the country, there was a reason.
At the end, the only people who suffer more are the civilians.

Listen, I don't support Saddam Hussein's tirany. And, don't assume that pacifism means that we (or the feminists) want Saddam to stay there.

Q-S

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Q-Source
So, are you saying that feminists (from other countries) are responsible for the safety of iraqi women in Iraq?. That is utterly absurd.

To you it appears a feminist convenience to speak out against violence against women and children only when it suits domestic agendas to empower matriarchal totalitarianism. The article isn't about anyone telling radical feminist totalitarians in the US or Britain to be "responsible" for the terror Iraq brings to its own women and children. The article by Tammy is merely saying that the feminist matriarchal totalitarians in America and Britain are silent about it because they do not like President Bush.

That just shows the feminist matriarchal hypocrisy. When people form noisy, whining emotional groups like NOW and claim they are doing it for "the children", how can they ignore Iraqi children?

We are invading Iraq. Let's do it for the children.

JK

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


...

We are invading Iraq. Let's do it for the children.

JK

Wow JK!

That new Bruce Willis movie really has you jazzed up, doesn't it?

It sounds like you are a fan of the John Wayne movie The Green Berets too since it ends with JW saying that the Vietnam War was really about the children.

[GreyWanderer]

Jedi Knight, I think people would like you better if you changed your avatar.

[Reginald]

Originally posted by GreyWanderer
Jedi Knight, I think people would like you better if you changed your avatar.


What something like this?

http://www.funfelt.com/clown.jpg

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by GreyWanderer
Jedi Knight, I think people would like you better if you changed your avatar.

lol I never got why he is JK, but has Sith for his avatar.

[Segnosaur]

You know, as much as I think Jedi is a moron, it is an issue...

It was recently Womans day. On the news, they showed several womans day protests which ended up being focused against military action in Iraq.

Also, a couple of decades ago, I remember reading this newspaper article from a feminist who said they needed more women in politics, but real women, not women like Margaret Thatcher (probably the most successful woman politician).

Now, my question, what about women who are actually for the war? Or who have conservative views? Are they no longer women? The feminist movement is harming itself by adopting stances on certain issues which not all women will embrace.

[bignickel]

Hey, come on guys. I disagree with mostly everything JK posts, but let's not derail this thread into Ad Hom country.

Of course, his post is itself an ad hominem on any feminists who don't support the upcoming resuming of hostilities against Iraq, but that doesn't mean everyone needs to do likewise. "Lead by example," or such, I say.

[Advocate]

Originally posted by Q-Source


So, are you saying that feminists (from other countries) are responsible for the safety of iraqi women in Iraq?. That is utterly absurd.

I don't think anyone is saying that. I am not JK, but if I understand his point correctly it is that by opposing the war, feminists are opposing the very action that could reduce such violence against the women of Iraq. While nothing would eliminate it entirely, a new regime could reduce such violence significantly.

What they were supposed to do then? They are free to move, whenever they want.

I don't get this one. What was it in reference to?

It changes a lot because, they are protesting against the war, they don't want more violence for that women and children. If they left the country, there was a reason.
At the end, the only people who suffer more are the civilians.

True. But a case can be made (and has been) that while the war would increase suffering in the short term, toppling Saddam would decrease suffering in the long term. This would especially apply to the women of Iraq.

Listen, I don't support Saddam Hussein's tirany. And, don't assume that pacifism means that we (or the feminists) want Saddam to stay there.

Q-S

But that is the effect of opposing war. I am not saying that opposing war means supporting Saddam, but it does mean accepting his regime and allowing it to continue. If you want to argue that the negative results of a war outweigh the positive results of a regime change, that is your right, but you must realize that this does mean accepting what is going on as the lesser of two evils.

[GreyWanderer]

Originally posted by LeFevre


lol I never got why he is JK, but has Sith for his avatar.

And every time I read a post by him I look at the avatar and think "he's evil, he's trying to trick me with his words".

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Advocate


I don't think anyone is saying that. I am not JK, but if I understand his point correctly it is that by opposing the war, feminists are opposing the very action that could reduce such violence against the women of Iraq. While nothing would eliminate it entirely, a new regime could reduce such violence significantly.

Well, it is just a matter of interpretation. I don't believe that more violence will improve women's conditions in the short or long run.
I think that negociation and education can change women's role in a society.

Look at Afganistan, do you think that women's conditions have changed a bit now?

Jedi is trying to discredit the feminists role, that's all.





But that is the effect of opposing war. I am not saying that opposing war means supporting Saddam, but it does mean accepting his regime and allowing it to continue. If you want to argue that the negative results of a war outweigh the positive results of a regime change, that is your right, but you must realize that this does mean accepting what is going on as the lesser of two evils.

Under the assumption that no negociation is possible.

Q-S

P.S. Apologies for not following your thread about women and draft. I was full of activities at that time.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Look at Afganistan, do you think that women's conditions have changed a bit now?

What, you mean other than the fact that they can leave the house now, and can get proper medical care, including vaccinations provided by the americans? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Q-Source

Under the assumption that no negociation is possible.

Of course then can negotiate with Saddam. Its just that he isn't likely to follow though on whatever you agree too.

[corplinx]

American feminists are too busy getting cities to change the name of "manhole" to something politically correct to campaign for the US to take on regimes like the Taliban or Saddam's Iraq who commit atrocities against women that american women can't even imagine.

Remember NOW and some of those other groups getting their pundit friends to write articles about "Bush's War Against Women" a week or two ago?

It just shows you what modern feminism has devolved into. Whatever happened to salary equality?

[Advocate]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Well, it is just a matter of interpretation. I don't believe that more violence will improve women's conditions in the short or long run.
I think that negociation and education can change women's role in a society.

Look at Afganistan, do you think that women's conditions have changed a bit now?

Actually they have improved and if we continue to pressure the new government they will keep improving. Right now the biggest problem facing women in Afghanistan is the lack of law and order outside of Kabul. Previously it was the law they had to be wary of. So at least the women inside Kabul are better off. The key there is to make sure the new regime is supported and complies with its agreements.

Under the assumption that no negociation is possible.

Negotiation has been tried for 12 years. It has failed. The options now are to fight or to let things continue as they are and wait to see if anything changes.

P.S. Apologies for not following your thread about women and draft. I was full of activities at that time.

No problem. I may create another one sometime. I would be interested in your response.

[susheel]

I had a couple of cousins in Iraq before the fiasco of the eighties. One thing that they told me was that compared to other countries in the area, Iraq had more working women and women had more rights and freedom. Their standard of education was also much higher than in other countries.

I don't know if since then things have changed for them. I am a little skeptical of the reports of atrocities on women atleast Arab women that keep coming out. How much of it is negative propaganda?
Iraq is going through bad times. How much of it is because of an Evil dictator and how much of it is because of an embargo on the country?

The reaon I say this is because of a visit to Iran some years ago. Fed on western propaganda about religious theocracy I was stunned by what I saw. Women in rather high posts (of course the burkha existed) but they were quite emancipated otherwise. And no, I wasn't 'escorted' around the place.

I spent a small oportion of my early years in Saudi and didn't see this. Bahrain was much better.

I am not denying Saddam's atrocities against the Kurds, but looking at a history of Kurdish insurgency one would also have to look at US role in it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Wow JK!

That new Bruce Willis movie really has you jazzed up, doesn't it?

It sounds like you are a fan of the John Wayne movie The Green Berets too since it ends with JW saying that the Vietnam War was really about the children.

last i heard, JK was looking forward to mushroom clouds appearing over Iraq.

[crackmonkey]

What a coincidence - I heard that you were looking forward to mushroom clouds over New York...

[JAR]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Also, that sentence you added from the article doesn't change the meaning of what Tammy said, whatsoever. That is why I didn't bother to include it and why I also linked the article so you could read it. Nice spin, but again, snake-eyes.

JK

What Jedi Knight says is true. Removing that sentence doesn't change the meaning of what she said.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
What a coincidence - I heard that you were looking forward to mushroom clouds over New York...

JK is the guy who posted the picture, not me.