BF2S Forums Christian women being forced to wear headscarves in Iraq.

LaidBackNinja wrote:

When in Rome...

do as the fucking Romans do.

If it's customary to wear a banana on your head in a country, you wear a banana on your head when you go to visit. Unless you want to offend the natives. (Or in this case, get shot by them.)

CameronPoe wrote:

san4 wrote:

You've said that Iraq is none of America's business. But you've also said that Americans should worry about "their" own people. I'm just trying to figure out who that includes. It doesn't include co-religionists, but it does include citizens of nations, the EU and the Western world perhaps. That sounds rather arbitrary. What about family members? Can Americans who have Iraqi cousins intervene on their behalf? Can Americans who have Iraqi friends try to help them? What affiliations justify intervention and which ones do not? You can't support isolationism if you can't draw that line. And I don't think you can.

They can individually intervene but the nation itself, a secular nation I might add, has no right to interfere in the internal politics of another nation unless that nation is a real and distinct threat to ones own homeland, in my view. The capital one might own in a particular nation or the interests one might have in a particular nation are subject to the local government, and it is at your own risk that you hold financial interests in another country. Most nations invest in stable countries. On your own head be it if a democratically elected government of a relatively distant nation (say Venezuela) nationalises the oil industry, in which you might have a financial interest. Those are the risks and such matters do not in my mind legitimise military action.

The bottom line for me is this: a nation can only intervene militarily in another nation if that nation poses a very real and imminent threat to ones own homeland. It's as simple as that.

So say if Ireland or an EU member or say the US were invaded then, if the government of either party requested help, then I would see that as helping an ally in a righteous and legitimate cause. Allying to afflict pain on the non-western world is not my bag.

Talking about nations instead of individuals doesn't solve the problem. Individuals can elect government representatives who promote their goals. If my Iraqi cousins were getting raped by Saddam's sons in Iraq and I mobilized other Americans to elect a government that would intervene to help them, you're saying I would be doing something wrong? If I feel strong affinity to fellow Christians (or Shiites or journalists or medical researchers--any group) and work to elect a US government that will intervene to prevent violence against them around the world, that's not proper? Individuals can intervene but they can't organize themselves to do so?

san4 wrote:

Talking about nations instead of individuals doesn't solve the problem. Individuals can elect government representatives who promote their goals. If my Iraqi cousins were getting raped by Saddam's sons in Iraq and I mobilized other Americans to elect a government that would intervene to help them, you're saying I would be doing something wrong? If I feel strong affinity to fellow Christians (or Shiites or journalists or medical researchers--any group) and work to elect a US government that will intervene to prevent violence against them around the world, that's not proper? Individuals can intervene but they can't organize themselves to do so?

I actually know a lad at work from the UAE who has cousins in Baghdad and he and his relatives are distinctly anti-American in their view on the Iraq invasion. What about him going out there to 'join the jihad'? The coin flips both ways. You would therefore condone Iranians moving wholesale into Iraq to protect the interests of their Shia brethren, am I correct? People don't generally elect governments to spend their tax dollars on wasteful forays thousands of miles from home. They elect them because they're concerned about employment, housing, social welfare, etc. Foreign policy is usually one of the last things on voters' minds, more's the pity. The use of a fully functioning military to serve some pro-journalist/pro-aid worker/pro-christian agenda just is not what I feel to be correct if you ask me. Sure, buy a ticket to Iraq and enlist in the Mehdi Army but don't expect tax dollars when ultimately you will probably be destroying lives in order to attain your narrow goal.

imortal wrote:

LaidBackNinja wrote:

LaidBackNinja wrote:

When in Rome...

do as the fucking Romans do.

If it's customary to wear a banana on your head in a country, you wear a banana on your head when you go to visit. Unless you want to offend the natives. (Or in this case, get shot by them.)

Okay, I agree with the basic idea you espouse of when in a 'foreign' country, then you abide by their customs.  However, should the reverse also not be true?  Should they not modify their actions in western cultures, instead of threatening, forcing, intimidating, or suing the country into forcing them to respect thier beliefs anyway? 

"You are in my country; you have to do things the way I want you to."
"I may be in your country, but you have to let me do things the way I want to."

That just does not make sense to me.  Which of those two ideas should take precedence? And how should they be applied?

We should consider that these behaviours do not encompass entire populations, and that endeavouring to apply this cultural attitude may not exist for many Muslims. Additionally, the strength of the religion within many Muslim lives may precede nationality, which may be irrelevant to some, and therefore the idea of their culture being wherever they reside would be appropriate. I would also point out that relatively few Muslims intend to impede on Western values to the point that many of you protest over 'political correctness'. The majority of the issues (which are often overblown) are the result of native Westerners changing customs for Muslims, not that the Muslims are insisting it. I have heard far too many Muslims say that they want no part in these controversies, that they just wanted to live in private.

However, regardless of any such cultural beliefs of Muslims, should we not ask ourselves how Westerners are also hypocrites in this exact same manner? It is Iraq, and we can't have other cultures going in there and doing whatever they wish. You come to my country, you have to wear the headscarf! Not too dissimilar to Western attitudes. I do not appreciate this behaviour by either Westerner or Muslim of the Middle East. I disagree with the basic idea that when in a foreign country, that one does not necessarily need to abide by their customs, other than the rule of law.

Stingray24 wrote:

This is not a westerner coming in and not abiding by a custom. This is Iraqi women not abiding by a custom because they don't share the Muslim belief, huge difference.  Unveiled women have been murdered along with their children, nice custom there.  Yet another huge difference because the western world does not enforce its customs under pain of death.

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner! Seriously guys i cant believe none of you above got it sooner. Cam and Turq arguing about if it's imperialistic or not. Come on wtf kind of shit is that?

CameronPoe wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Yeah, I know...  I'm a bit more imperialistic than I used to be, but I try to moderate it with my small government ideals.

Whatever the case, I'm just saying that I think it's wrong for them to force it on non-Muslim women.  While some social changes need to happen from within, others must be done from the outside.

My support for this idea comes from historical examples like how Mohammed's followers were an invading force against many cultures in order to spread Islam.  They successfully changed many cultures as an outside force.  So did Catholicism.  It may not be the most moral thing to do, but sometimes, it is practical.

You aren't talking about making people fond of fast food - you're talking about steam rolling over a central tenet of Islam, a religion currently practiced by over 1 billion people for the past 1400 years.

If you dont want to wear a hijab, dont go there.  There really isn't anymore to it.  Why do some people insist on placing their rules on other people.  If its in your house no problem, but Iraq is not your house, so put a damn scarf on or stay the F away.  Not that i agree with the Hijab or whatever, I just think its their land, their laws.

Stingray24 wrote:

This is not a westerner coming in and not abiding by a custom. This is Iraqi women not abiding by a custom because they don't share the Muslim belief, huge difference.  Unveiled women have been murdered along with their children, nice custom there.  Yet another huge difference because the western world does not enforce its customs under pain of death.

It is not necessarily the actions, but the attitude that draws similarities to the advocation of Western cultural superiority in our nations. These are "murderous militias" that are performing these actions, not an organized attempt by national or civil authorities to restrict their freedom, and none of us will find agreement with those actions. It is not a custom to murder these women. For my part, I am simply playing devil's advocate. I strongly disagree with attempts to restrict cultural freedom in Iraq or Canada or America.

These women may be Iraqi, but many people in the West who attempt to retain their former culture are born Westerners. Yet, they are similarly criticized for not being American or English, or whatever nation we might be debating, as any immigrant. You know that. A difference, yes, but not a huge one, and not relevant enough to register a significant difference to Western attitudes.

For the 100th time these are Iraqi women ...

Stingray24 wrote:

For the 100th time these are Iraqi women ...

That's precisely the problem StingRay - this is an IRAQI problem as GS said - what are you gonna do? Use magic to stop it from happening???

Braddock wrote:

So what. It's their country and they have their own regulations and rules. They're often forced NOT to wear their scarves and religious headwear in certain Western countries ...you want them to follow our rules in their own countries too?

really?  Where?  Granted, you cannot wear it when receiving a Driver's License photo.  Kinda hard to use a photo ID of a veil as identification.  Yes, we do place that limit on them.  But, for the most part, in their general lives, they can wear what they want and act as they like, so long as they do not violate our laws.


Although, I will admit that, in reference to a previous argument, that Americans (especially those on vacations) can be incredibly arrogant and ignorant. That is not everyone, however.

Stingray24 wrote:

Iraqi authorities should address it in some way so these women are not harrassed and threatened with death.  What do you suggest?  That they just go along and let armed thugs run their lives?

middle of a war...hello?

basrah is like the west virginia of iraq.

depends cam.  My experience with Iraqis has led me to believe that the majority want to live secular, modern lifestyles.  Bought plenty of liquor from vendors, saw the most beautiful women in the world wearing sexy clothing and make up, nothing covering up.  I used to get a kick out of the fact at some checkpoints that I would used to man, on thursdays and fridays (their weekend) I would find more alcohol and cooking equipment and meat than I would the rest of the week.  Iraqis are no different than you or I.  They would even slide me a couple of beers if I asked.  But, again, my experiences were in baghdad for the most part, which is not a good representation of the rural areas of Iraq.  In taji,  it was much more farming, many more hillbillies and women all clad in black carrying shit on their heads or working the fields.  only 27 kilometers north of a ver modern, secular city.