It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Saudi woman beats up religious police officer who stopped her for walking with a man

page: 7
54
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by legalizeit
thats what happens with frustration + that time of the month .. wooh!

I bet the guy she was walking with is having second thoughts .. things that make you go hmmm ..


A woman like that earns my respect!!! What makes you think she'd whoop her mans arse(unless he deserved it)?

He better be happy she respects herself, and their bond enough to open up a can for those principles!

If he doesn't, i'll take her! Lol! Good job LIONESS!!




posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Another good thread Modern, S&F.

We do need to see more people fighting oppression and I hope it happens. Not just in Saudi but all around the globe. If everyone were to stand up for themselves like this young women did, the world would be a much better place. And although I'd prefer peace over war, a war against oppression is OK with me because it's about human rights and we all deserve to have our freedoms.

To not be allowed to walk with a man is just ridiculous. Just how in some middle eastern countries women can't show their face in public, the must wear a veil. Why? Because they believe the beauty of the women must be covered up... well long ago we all used to walk around half naked and no one had a problem with it, but it's gotten to the point in some places you are not allowed to show your face? Give me a break...

But I do want to add, I'm down for women walking around half naked once again if that counts for anything! And believe it not, there is a movement going on for women to be allowed to be topless just like men can be in public (in certain places at least). I support them



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by highlyoriginal
 


I support them too! In response to the topless thing...I must ask, lol, is your support extended with 1 hand, or 2?! Lol!



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   
The big irony in this is with all the "war on terror" focusing on these back-woods countries that the neo-cons keep pushing for, Saudi Arabia, a supposed ally, has some of the worst laws imaginable as well as some of the most radical religious wackos.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
No, no, no ,no, no! This can't be right. Muslims are peaceful, religious tolerant people. This is all George W Bush's fault (sarcasm).



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by bonnieprince
If you go around oppressing people who believe in oppression, how will your moral example compel them to change



I dont know, why dont you ask the Nazi's how violence compelled them to stop being oppressive?

Last time I checked we did not end that little human rights disaster by standing around throwing flowers and lovebeads at them.

In that case, a violent and oppressive minority seized control of a whole country and terrorized or killed any dissenters from within. It is often the same with religious fanaticism. How do you know the majority of the people of that country WANT that extremist form of religious policing? How do you know the majority of the people would not be relieved if that hold was broken and a more moderate form of Islam were allowed to thrive?

Would you feel the same about respect for their culture if slavery were the cultural issue? Or ethnic cleansing?




The problem is the more you aggressively criticise and attack other people, the more they will become polarised. The fence sitters get more extreme the more you attack the practice they may lean towards, leading to a higher level of extremism.

Now you use the Nazi's as an example, my view on that was interestingly enough, we didn't go to war with them because they were killing Jews, that only came to light later and was used a justification. We went to war with them because they were aggressively expanding across Europe. I don't condone what they did, but the circumstances of the time allowed them to rise to power (crippled economy, large unemployment amount youths, sound similar to today?).

If the majority of people in that country don't want religious policing, the practice would end, just like how slavery ended with a tide of public opinion against it, not with the use of an invasion from outside. The hold can be broken, and I think a much more useful way of doing it, is not attacking their culture, but by showing them the possibility of a different way, since attacks cause moderates to become extreme as they need to choose sides.

Would I respect their culture if it condoned slavery? Pointed question, with my western views, probably not, but at the same time id consider some of the lower classes in the west almost living a slave like existence to employers, who only give them enough wage to survive with basics. Ethnic cleansing? Once again probably not, but i'd just try help the tide within, change is easier and more permanent when it's done with the consent of the people as the whole.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bonnieprince

Now you use the Nazi's as an example, my view on that was interestingly enough, we didn't go to war with them because they were killing Jews, that only came to light later and was used a justification.


I dont disagree with that, but its irrelevant to my point, that being, the Nazi's did not stop their oppressive march across Europe because other more pacifist countries moral example moved them to reconsider their own violence and oppression. They stopped because they were ground into the dirt. And only because of that. Had they not been, they would not have stopped.


Originally posted by bonnieprince
If the majority of people in that country don't want religious policing, the practice would end, just like how slavery ended with a tide of public opinion against it, not with the use of an invasion from outside.


You are incorrect. Muslim countries by and large are not democratic. The Taliban was a minority, and an example that you could easily use to see that point illustrated if you chose to. There are also good sources that talk about how Muslim (minority) extremists terrorize the more moderate Muslims in Indonesia and then take over politically.

I appreciate your apparent sincerity in your absolutist stance for tolerance of other cultures, no matter how they may violate the human rights of others, but I think it is ill considered. It is not required that we tolerate misogyny, slavery or ethnic cleansing. No matter how ancient the history a people may have with those practices. I hope you do some serious study, rather than just use feel good principles.

You may not change your mind even then, but at least that way you will not be paving the road to hell with good intentions, you will be doing so knowingly.

Edit to add;


Originally posted by bonnieprince
The problem is the more you aggressively criticise and attack other people, the more they will become polarised.


Are you honestly suggesting that if I withhold criticism, say, of Saudi Arabia, they will be more likely to relax their misogyny? I disagree, personally.

I think Western women have every right to be a bit worried about an oppressive misogynistic middle eastern religion gaining a foothold in their countries. The last time that happened they were reduced to the status of property, and it has take over 1000 years to undo that, and we have only just managed that in these last 100 years.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   
LOL good on her,I applaud what she did,oppressive religion needs to end.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Good and bad, as stated before.
I'm glad she stood up for herself and showed that women can fight back physically if needed, too, and stand up for her gender.
Whether it may be religious or not, we're in a day and age where sexism or racism just shouldn't be tolerated anymore, and can cause much larger problem like wars and genocide. But would non-tolerance for racism/sexism cause more violence? It's an endless circle, it seems.
But again, good for her!



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Antigen Shift
But would non-tolerance for racism/sexism cause more violence? It's an endless circle, it seems.
But again, good for her!


Well, we could ask ourselves if non tolerance for slavery has caused more violence. And in the short run, the answer was "yes." But in the long run, I think most people think it was worth it.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

I dont disagree with that, but its irrelevant to my point, that being, the Nazi's did not stop their oppressive march across Europe because other more pacifist countries moral example moved them to reconsider their own violence and oppression. They stopped because they were ground into the dirt. And only because of that. Had they not been, they would not have stopped.


They were allowed to continue because nobody did anything peaceful or otherwise to help Germany before it was polarised to that extreme, but having known quite a bit about ww2 and leading up to it, this argument can go in circles forever.


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
You are incorrect. Muslim countries by and large are not democratic. The Taliban was a minority, and an example that you could easily use to see that point illustrated if you chose to. There are also good sources that talk about how Muslim (minority) extremists terrorize the more moderate Muslims in Indonesia and then take over politically.

I appreciate your apparent sincerity in your absolutist stance for tolerance of other cultures, no matter how they may violate the human rights of others, but I think it is ill considered. It is not required that we tolerate misogyny, slavery or ethnic cleansing. No matter how ancient the history a people may have with those practices. I hope you do some serious study, rather than just use feel good principles.

You may not change your mind even then, but at least that way you will not be paving the road to hell with good intentions, you will be doing so knowingly.


Taliban was a minority which gained power through abnormal circumstances (eg. the west putting it in the position of power). Indonesia does have a problem with extremists, but they haven't folded under their pressure, neither has pakistan, the Saudi government was put there and is supported by the west, they arn't normal circumstances for regimes of minority coming into power.


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Are you honestly suggesting that if I withhold criticism, say, of Saudi Arabia, they will be more likely to relax their misogyny? I disagree, personally.

I think Western women have every right to be a bit worried about an oppressive misogynistic middle eastern religion gaining a foothold in their countries. The last time that happened they were reduced to the status of property, and it has take over 1000 years to undo that, and we have only just managed that in these last 100 years.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]


No i'm saying withholding agressive criticism which attacks them personally as seen in this thread by some people generalising it with all muslims. I mean, set an example, don't give up ground, but don't be agressive either. If i'm on the fence about something, leaning to one side or even in the middle, somebody gives me an agressive push, im going to fall off. Criticise and give information, but don't attack.

I appreciate the civility on your part, better than some people on here.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I guess nothing but a beating like that could spark change. However it would have been good for her if there was an alternative way to spread awareness but inevitably it would reap the same results in a society of that type.

I remember seeing the royal family behead someone in the country in the presence of the US president (At the time) and his father.

Take care out there and try not to get too crazy when dealing with these types of things. There is a more peaceful way to resolve certain situations but I guess under the same circumstances I would act differently. Now back to my meditation.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Well, if they find a way to kill her as they usually do, she will be made a martyr and may start a feminist movement like never seen in the Middle-Est.

The male population of a war-prone nation or a nation that have been conquered in war usually uses its female population as scapegoat. It is on the back of these oppressed women that these men try to build themselves back up, but when you mistreat half of your nation, you just create bad karma. You create a bitter vengeful enemy in your own backyard.

And please, don't bring politics into this. This is one woman in her OWN country fighting back against an openly shameful discriminatory regime. Women worldwide could be victim of this sexist oppression under the cover of "religion".



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 03:43 AM
link   
To all the "Freedom lovers" here:

How about this: What do you say about the idea that on the streets of good ol' US of A, women start walking around NAKED on the streets.

You know, absolutely normal, they walk around naked. Sit in a cafe naked, teach at school naked. Oh and dont get me wrong, men too.

So, basically, everyone just runs around naked showing their hairy ass to everyone, children included.

Imagine this USA.

Would you approve of that?

No?

Why not?!

It's FREEDOM.

If these people decide they want to run around naked, WHO ARE YOU TO FORBID IT?

What's that? Descency? Moral code? "It wouldn't by good".

by WHAT standards?

Where is the LINE here? Where do you draw it?

So, not really naked, but it's OK to walk around in bikini? Short skirt? What?
How long, Knee long?

WHERE IS THE LINE?

WHERE IS THE DEFINITION?


You can't IMPOSE your view of what is OK and what is not on OTHER CULTURES.

What you think is OK doesn't mean it really is OK - why is it OK, just because YOU think it is OK? Are YOU the MAKER OF STANDARDS?
Who gave you that RIGHT?

What makes your definition of what is right better than someone elses?



Pretty please?




Qur'an clearly states that MODESTY is commanded for both men and women.

Modest means: Run around in a way NOT TO PROVOKE or STAND OUT.

For women: Cover parts of your body which can be deemed to provoke an erotic reaction from men - e.g. your breasts, behind, belly ...

For men the same.

You do realize that liberalizing everything, and running around half naked even in front of children in the streets you are lowering the INHIBITION LEVEL.

These children will have such a low inhibition level which can lead to devastating development in the future where they will regard e.g. a woman as nothing more than a SEXUAL OBJECT.
This further LOWERS the inhibition level leading to them not having a problem with molseting, rape, etc. as long as they dont get caught.
I mean, why not rape her? I want sex, she is just an OBJECT. So, go for it?

Do you see where this is leading?

Do you now know WHY did God order modesty for both men and women?

I am 34 yrs old and a father of 3 kids - and I am still ashamed to KISS my wife in public - kissing (mouth) is something profoundly INTIMATE - I do not want people to see me do it. It is something between ME and MY WIFE - not for the whole World to see.

The same way I don't want to see other people do it in public, and I don't want my children have to see it.

This only leads to the destruction of values and moral, and to turining us in no more than ANIMALS.

We are better than that.



So, I am not saying I approve of "religious police" - but PEOPLE themself should have a minimum descency in public. And behave modestly.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by highlyoriginal
I'm down for women walking around half naked once again if that counts for anything! And believe it not, there is a movement going on for women to be allowed to be topless just like men can be in public (in certain places at least). I support them


Maybe you need to move to Ontario, then, because it is fully legal for women to go about their business topless in public. Does it happen much? Sadly, no...but where there's legislation, there's hope!



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by prionace glauca
reply to post by ShadowAngel85
 


I can give an comparable example of India. At one point in India it was against the Law for women to wear jeans. Eventually a cultural revolution took place and now you have certain areas in India of private nude beaches.


I am not sure that is correct. It was never against the law to wear jeans for women in India. Can you provide a source?



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crimson_King

Originally posted by prionace glauca
reply to post by ShadowAngel85
 


I can give an comparable example of India. At one point in India it was against the Law for women to wear jeans. Eventually a cultural revolution took place and now you have certain areas in India of private nude beaches.


I am not sure that is correct. It was never against the law to wear jeans for women in India. Can you provide a source?


I am the source, I lived there in those times.
Also no holding hands in public and women were not to be seen with males alone or without a elder relative present.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by skajkingdom
To all the "Freedom lovers" here:

How about this: What do you say about the idea that on the streets of good ol' US of A, women start walking around NAKED on the streets.

You know, absolutely normal, they walk around naked. Sit in a cafe naked, teach at school naked. Oh and dont get me wrong, men too.

So, basically, everyone just runs around naked showing their hairy ass to everyone, children included.

Imagine this USA.


First of all, there are laws against public nudity. The last I checked from the article this individual was not naked....unless you consider uncovered hands and face as being classified as Nudism/Naked.

We get it, some enjoy the domination of women and need to hold onto that power.

[edit on 19-5-2010 by prionace glauca]




top topics



 
54
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join