|
Xandu posted:
 Everytime I think they can't get worse, well... here we are.
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
Xandu posted:
Is that even worthy of calling news? I mean sure it's awful but female circumcision has been widespread among radical Islam and Christianity in Africa for decades. Had it just not gotten a foothold in the middle east before this or something?  EDIT: Some quick googling tells me that the practice has been declining in Iraq over the years, until now I guess. 
MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Jul 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:Hahahah they are comically evil. Things like this don't even make me laugh ironically anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:Is that even worthy of calling news? I mean sure it's awful but female circumcision has been widespread among radical Islam and Christianity in Africa for decades. Had it just not gotten a foothold in the middle east before this or something? It's quite common in Egypt and I think in some of the Gulf countries, but I don't think it's that common everywhere. Not sure about Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
It's actually pretty common among the Iraqi Kurds from what I understand. Not sure about the population as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4-ChcL6Pzo
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
And more importantly, ISIS is still fighting to hold onto its territory and Baghdadi's top priority is apparently issuing a decree calling for all women to be mutilated. As though there's nothing else to worry about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Time lapse of all the attacks on hospitals in Syria. http://t.co/YioU4Wrzv1
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
Where's the data from?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Realtalk: How does woman circumcision work, exactly?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
kalstrams posted:Realtalk: How does woman circumcision work, exactly? It's pretty gross. Procedures section: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
kalstrams posted:Realtalk: How does woman circumcision work, exactly? Real answer: You don't want to know, but you're about to World Health Organization posted:Female genital mutilation is classified into four major types. e: beaten
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Where's the data from? The Syrian American Medical Society.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
The first time I was introduced to female genital mutilation I realized to my horror that the Type I referred to the complete removal of the clitoris and it only gets worse from there. Calling that poo poo "circumcision" is just a way to make it sound less like a crime than it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
kalstrams posted:Realtalk: How does woman circumcision work, exactly? It ranges from "merely" painful and unnecessary, to horrific and disfiguring. Think removal of clitoris, labia, and sewing up all but a small portion of the vagina itself, often with unsterilized tools and without anesthesia. Not for nothing is it generally referred to as "female genital mutilation"
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Real answer: You don't want to know, but you're about to Xandu posted:It's pretty gross.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
Yeah the male equivalent would be getting your cock head lopped off, for a start.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
male circumcision I can understand. Its weird that male circumcision has religious significance but whatever. female 'circumcision' is closer to castration in my uneducated opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
^^^It can have severe reproductive and other medical consequences.Xandu posted:And more importantly, ISIS is still fighting to hold onto its territory and Baghdadi's top priority is apparently issuing a decree calling for all women to be mutilated. As though there's nothing else to worry about. The international community is hardly rushing to aid the Iraqi government though, and their counter attacks are not succeeding and fueled by equally sectarian militias. The IS honestly seem to have bitten off as much as they can chew and are acting accordingly by starting to govern the areas they control according to their principles, not to mention the recruiting benefits that such statements create. They are a theological militant movement, not a pillaging mercenary band.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
It's pretty drat invasive too for a "traditional" practice. I have too imagine it's not uncommon for girls to die from the procedure if it's performed in primitive conditions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
kalstrams posted:Is there some "Halal type" of female circumcision, out of these four, or neither, or no particular rule about it? It's not even a loving Islamic thing, if you wanna see what I mean you should look up maps of FGM by country, in the traditional Islamic heartland it's only majorly practiced in three countries; Egypt, Iraq, and Yemen. The rest is in Saharan-Sub-Saharan Africa. edit: for clarification, the process is not traditionally Islamic; though the practice is largely associated with African Islam, everything I've read suggests it predates the introduction of Islam to the regions where it is performed. That ISIS believes it is part of proper Islamic tradition is completely nuts. An example of this I use is Togo, in which 50% of women experience genital mutilation, but only 20% of its population is muslim. illrepute fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Jul 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
namesake posted:They are a theological militant movement, not a pillaging mercenary band. They are kind of both.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
New Division posted:It's pretty drat invasive too for a "traditional" practice. I have too imagine it's not uncommon for girls to die from the procedure if it's performed in primitive conditions. You imagine correctly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Each day you wonder how much worse can things get and here we are. There's no floor, no end in sight and we appear to be gaining momentum as we fall. E: You have a valid point that when you view things from a geological timescale, FGM really doesn't seem so bad. matrocious fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Jul 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
matrocious posted:Each day you wonder how much worse can things get and here we are. There's no floor, no end in sight and we appear to be gaining momentum as we fall. This is bullshit. We're a flawed mammalian species and you're freaking out about things that have always happened but existed in a more unconnected world. It turns out the general species moves at a slower pace than whoever deems themselves 'enlightened' want it to go.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:male circumcision I can understand. Its weird that male circumcision has religious significance but whatever. This thread seems appropriate for some Hellraiser ish discussions of the flesh 'This is what you wanted...this is what you wanted to see...this is what you wanted to know! And here it is.' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZjmGDLyM9Q&t=3690s Maybe no one should surgically altered before they are old enough to make any kind of adult decisions about their bodies? (tattoos, piercings, etc) Any kind of non-consensual mutilation should be taboo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
Xandu posted:
We need a necromancer to bring back Saddam Hussein.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
Hypothetically speaking, would any of this have happened if Hussein was still in power?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
Of course not. No collapse of the Baathist government, no mass firings and dissolving of the army by Paul Bremer. No dissolved army and civil service, no sectarian war and training ground for militants.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
Unless he was somehow overthrown without US involvement, then who the gently caress knows. But yeah, hard to ignore the impact of the invasion on the outcome here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
The ironic thing being that we destabilized the region so much that the idea of "fighting them over there" is actually working but in a completely incompetent way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Of course not. No collapse of the Baathist government, no mass firings and dissolving of the army by Paul Bremer. No dissolved army and civil service, no sectarian war and training ground for militants. No Arab Spr
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Unless he was somehow overthrown without US involvement, then who the gently caress knows. It's almost impossible to conceive of any other scenario where his power would have been challenged, which is probably why Israel was always up our rear end to invade. Maybe if he died and Qusay got sloppy or something, but the party was strong enough to maintain control with him as a figurehead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:No Arab Spr How do you come to this conclusion? Are you implying Hussein would have intervened in Tunisia, or that Tunisia would have never happened at all?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
Red Pyramid posted:How do you come to this conclusion? Are you implying Hussein would have intervened in Tunisia, or that Tunisia would have never happened at all? He's implying a lot of the equipment and militias that are fighting in these conflicts started in Iraq or sent people to Iraq to train with the insurgents, or freedom fighters I hate both terms.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
Red Pyramid posted:How do you come to this conclusion? Are you implying Hussein would have intervened in Tunisia, or that Tunisia would have never happened at all? No, I was saying that Arab Spring would've still happened. That's why I stopped midway through typing it, but that was poor framing on my part. SedanChair seemed to be jumping in with the "This is all because of Iraq" narrative, and it's a bit simplistic to me. Obviously the Iraq war, specifically debaathification and the power vacuum combined with a lot of pissed off Sunni's who no longer controlled the government, played a massive role in creating a sectarian hotbed in Iraq. But those aren't the only factors that have played a role in instability in the region, or the rise of jihadist forces throughout the MENA. Tyranny has also been a major issue. It was tyranny specifically that led to uprisings in Syria, Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia. There's no telling whether a Saddam-controlled Iraq would have also been on that chopping block, and even if not, there's little to suggest that the rise of Boko Haram, al-Shabaab, etc is closely linked to Iraq. Takfiri ideology has just become incredibly pervasive, and it is supported by some of the deepest pockets in the Middle East. It was going to grow, and alongside that, the tensions in the region that were ready to explode into unrest. The US is guilty of lighting the match (as an analogy, not to diminish the scale of the crimes committed by US forces in Iraq), but the powder keg was already there, and it's highly unlikely that it was going to be kept together by oppressive regimes pointing a gun at it in the long term.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
I think that without OIF the Middle East would look so radically different that one can't even speculate about the political situation in Tunisia, Egypt or elsewhere. Who can say? Thousands of geopolitical variables would be completely different. Obama wouldn't be president, just to name one. Maybe there would have been an eventual series of protests and uprisings across the ME, maybe not. To say that Saddam would still be in power and keeping the Sunnis fully in control of a functioning state is a much simpler and more easily supported assertion. That means no Islamic State.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I think that without OIF the Middle East would look so radically different that one can't even speculate about the political situation in Tunisia, Egypt or elsewhere. Who can say? Thousands of geopolitical variables would be completely different. Obama wouldn't be president, just to name one. Maybe there would have been an eventual series of protests and uprisings across the ME, maybe not. We probably would have treated the 2008 economic crises completely different.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
I'm still not convinced Saddam wouldn't have continued his push into Assadlike terror/torture/control attacks and empowered insurgents anyway. He was a terrible human being. That said sometimes it's better to have a vicious leader in actual "control" than a huge melting pot of insanely violent rebels running around free. It's a shame they all can't just kill each other off really but that's pointless hope and not something that often happens in reality. Question though, under Saddam was the military paid well at least?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
The only real difference I see as far as the Spring is concerned is that there would be slightly less available extremist fighters to take advantage. Who knows if half the army wouldn't rise in rebellion though, they certainly did in Syria.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 07:50
|
|
