A culture of violence and bigotry
May. 13th, 2004 08:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pluralthis will probably piss some of you off but it has been brewing for sometime
I am literally fed up and appalled with the coddling by the liberal west of Arab and Muslim governments and militants
To quote Bill Maher
"I am not prejudiced against them, prejudiced means "pre-judging", I am judging"
Which is what I am doing here, looking at their actions, and practices and judging them according to our standards.
Take the prison situation; for Americans to be outraged makes sense such behavior is outside the norm and the boundaries of what is acceptable in Western civilization. For Arabs in middle eastern countries to be outraged is hypocritical bordering on humorous. You cannot honestly be outraged at behavior which is the culturally and societally accepted norm in your society. They are not appalled and outraged that such behavior occurred, they are appalled and outraged that it was done by Americans
When Saddam did the same, there was no Arab outcry.
When King Hussein of Jordan shelled Palestinian refugee camps for a month, slaughtering thousands, there was no Arab outcry
When Arafat has lynched, jailed, tortured or executed his political opponents, there was no Arab outcry
When the Saudis have summarily executed political activists, and dissentors, there was no Arab outcry
But if an American or Israeli does anything remotely similar, all hell breaks loose.
This isn't outrage, it is hypocrisy and racism
They say Islam is a religion of peace, and let us for a moment, assume that is true. Then the questions I must ask are:
Why is nearly every Islamic regime categorically famous for its violent human rights violations?
Why on a per capita basis does Islam produce vastly more extremist militants and terrorists than any other nation, race, or religion?
The answer I hear, is the old "Bad Apples" clause, a few rotten ones spoiling the bunch, but that simply doesn't cut it when you look and realize the extent to which their governments and societies not only approve and condone but carry out large scale human rights abuses. Lets look closely at Arab/Muslim culture, not in the western world where they function (peacefully and successfully) as a minority, but in those places where they are a majority and determine their own society:
Homosexuals are commonly killed or beaten for being homosexual
Women are second class citizens
Daughters are murdered as a result of being raped or having sex in the name of "protecting the family honor"
Wives are beaten at their husbands whim
Dismemberment and beheadings are commonly practiced forms of punishment
Democracy is unheard of
Corruption is commonplace
Censorship of both news and ideas is the rule
Terrorists who target civilians, women and children are lauded as heroes
Religious leaders give public and televised sermons espousing racism and urging the killing of women and children
State text books slander other races/religions with accusations of ritual murder and blood sacrifice
Mainstream politicians call for the destruction of sovereign countries and the extermination of their entire population
Political dissent is met with summary executions or long prison sentences
Militants use children as bombs or cover from which to launch attacks
Public figures routinely threaten the US (and other nations) with Terrorist attacks
I wonder how can any liberal westerner, who supports Human rights, Gay rights and Equality for Women. Who Fights against racism and intolerance, or advocate the Democratic Process, look themselves in the mirror and still support these regimes and this society?
When sermons like this are produced and aired on government television channels, how can we support those causes which so blatantly encourage racism, murder and gross violations of human rights?
I am honestly confused and befuddled, please explain this to me?
I am literally fed up and appalled with the coddling by the liberal west of Arab and Muslim governments and militants
To quote Bill Maher
"I am not prejudiced against them, prejudiced means "pre-judging", I am judging"
Which is what I am doing here, looking at their actions, and practices and judging them according to our standards.
Take the prison situation; for Americans to be outraged makes sense such behavior is outside the norm and the boundaries of what is acceptable in Western civilization. For Arabs in middle eastern countries to be outraged is hypocritical bordering on humorous. You cannot honestly be outraged at behavior which is the culturally and societally accepted norm in your society. They are not appalled and outraged that such behavior occurred, they are appalled and outraged that it was done by Americans
When Saddam did the same, there was no Arab outcry.
When King Hussein of Jordan shelled Palestinian refugee camps for a month, slaughtering thousands, there was no Arab outcry
When Arafat has lynched, jailed, tortured or executed his political opponents, there was no Arab outcry
When the Saudis have summarily executed political activists, and dissentors, there was no Arab outcry
But if an American or Israeli does anything remotely similar, all hell breaks loose.
This isn't outrage, it is hypocrisy and racism
They say Islam is a religion of peace, and let us for a moment, assume that is true. Then the questions I must ask are:
Why is nearly every Islamic regime categorically famous for its violent human rights violations?
Why on a per capita basis does Islam produce vastly more extremist militants and terrorists than any other nation, race, or religion?
The answer I hear, is the old "Bad Apples" clause, a few rotten ones spoiling the bunch, but that simply doesn't cut it when you look and realize the extent to which their governments and societies not only approve and condone but carry out large scale human rights abuses. Lets look closely at Arab/Muslim culture, not in the western world where they function (peacefully and successfully) as a minority, but in those places where they are a majority and determine their own society:
Homosexuals are commonly killed or beaten for being homosexual
Women are second class citizens
Daughters are murdered as a result of being raped or having sex in the name of "protecting the family honor"
Wives are beaten at their husbands whim
Dismemberment and beheadings are commonly practiced forms of punishment
Democracy is unheard of
Corruption is commonplace
Censorship of both news and ideas is the rule
Terrorists who target civilians, women and children are lauded as heroes
Religious leaders give public and televised sermons espousing racism and urging the killing of women and children
State text books slander other races/religions with accusations of ritual murder and blood sacrifice
Mainstream politicians call for the destruction of sovereign countries and the extermination of their entire population
Political dissent is met with summary executions or long prison sentences
Militants use children as bombs or cover from which to launch attacks
Public figures routinely threaten the US (and other nations) with Terrorist attacks
I wonder how can any liberal westerner, who supports Human rights, Gay rights and Equality for Women. Who Fights against racism and intolerance, or advocate the Democratic Process, look themselves in the mirror and still support these regimes and this society?
When sermons like this are produced and aired on government television channels, how can we support those causes which so blatantly encourage racism, murder and gross violations of human rights?
I am honestly confused and befuddled, please explain this to me?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 01:41 am (UTC)As a more practical illustration consider the following examples:
1) the Japanese never signed the GC, yet we extended them the same rights... far and above what they gave the Allies as prisoners.
2) What of the Taliban? Most had no real uniform to speak of, yet they did fit every other requirement of the accord.
3) While this one is more an intellectual exercise, what of the Souther prisoners who faught without uniforms, not as gorrilas, but in the picket lines...
My point still stands (imho): outlines of behaviour reguarding human rights should be extended to all after they have been declined, or not at all. For if they aren't they undermine the moral principles to which they were originally stated.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 11:52 am (UTC)The Geneva convention didnt exist until 1949, i.e. well after WW2. So the japanese couldnt have signed it then.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 02:28 pm (UTC)consider
The current incarnation of the geneva convention (the fourth), was indeed agreed upon in 1949. The did exist a geveva convention on the treatment of prisoners (the third) that was agreed upon in 1929.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 03:37 pm (UTC)I didnt know that
I had thought it was the situation in ww2 which had brought about the GC
I stand corrected
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 05:07 pm (UTC)I knew the GC was around during WWII from watching Hogan's Heros, and I knew the Japanese didn't sign the GC because of some history channel thing on Bataan.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 06:16 pm (UTC)oh shit
yeah I should have known that
seeing as I loved that show
no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 06:01 am (UTC)A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
and then this last bit from part III article 17:
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
It would apear that it really doesn't make a difference whether or not the contry being invaded has signed, it's up to the signees to adhere to the principles... As for who should or should not be given POW status, they need only fall into ONE of the categories listed, and I'm guessing most in of those detained in either Afghanistan or Iraq fall into the one of the three I pointed out.
Also, to argue that we weren't being especially savage, that last bit from article 17 pretty much says we were.