American women and the LGBT community overwhelmingly supported the re-election of a President they ordained as the messiah of twenty-first century equality, tolerance, and morality. I wonder if these Obama loyalists take issue with the President’s decision to support Islamist rebels in Syria who are performing at will public executions of Syrians fighting to preserve Assad’s government tolerance of women’s rights and freedoms.
Women’s rights in Syria will evaporate if Al Qaeda backed Al Nusrah is successful in removing Bashir Assad and his Shiite Alawite government from Damascus.
Obama’s tolerant radicals, I mean rebels—the recently vetted Islamist terror groups awaiting shipments of US weapons—have recently issued a fatwa (an order based on Sharia law) banning women from leaving their houses “in immodest dress, in tight clothing that shows off their bodies, or wearing makeup on their face. According to recent Facebook postings from the City of Aleppo, reported by Reuters, Syrian rebels have proclaimed, “It is incumbent on all sisters to obey God and commit to Islamic etiquette.”
These are the same Syrian rebels—all listed on the US “Foreign Terrorist Organization List“—that are destroying non-Muslim houses of worship, and publicly beheading Christians, their religious leaders, and anyone caught blaspheming Islam in public as well as whomever they determine may be loyal to Syrian societies sectarian tolerances.
Prior to the Saudi and Qatar backed terrorism campaign, now supported by Obama, Syria—never a model of true equality—was a country that allowed women to wear sleeveless, tight fitting apparel, above the knee skirts and did not require the mandatory use of head scarves. Syria did not impose strict Islamic law on its citizenry. Apparently, Islamic etiquette in Syria, a Muslim nation, is about to change if Obama backed rebels have their way. Islamic radicalization–America’s enemy according to Obama–is taking hold in Syria and Obama supports this change?
Contrary to the propaganda shoveled on American media, Bashir Assad’s government has a history far more respectful of western culture’s permissive values, though Syria is far from the idyllic model of tolerance Americans experience at home. Make no mistake the Syrian government heavily regulates public activity and discourse. However, Syria has a history of accepting social values that allow freedom of worship and freedom to associate condemned by the Sunni Islamist backed rebels Obama now supports with US weapons and aid.
Unlike its current Sunni adversaries (Qatar and Saudi Arabia) Syria doe not criminally penalize non-Islamic worship, hand holding, public displays of affection, wearing non-Islamic jewelry, and unmarried women’s association with men. The Syrian government does not require adherence to strict Islamic law on a wide range of social issues.
In Saudi Arabia and Qatar, strict Islamist states, the subjugation of women is a cultural norm. Women have few rights in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two radical Sunni nations. In Qatar, non-married woman found in the un-chaperoned company of a man not related by blood or marriage is ordered to take a virginity test, failure of which can result in a legal honor killing. Married Muslim women, in both Saudi Arabia and Qatar found violating a strict code prohibiting free association might find themselves sentenced to state sanctioned beatings or worse.
I wonder how the White House would respond if asked by, say, Rachael Maddow, a woman, a Rhodes scholar, and an Obama supporter, why are we backing a regime change in Syria that will undoubtedly drive Syrian society backwards to a culture that prohibits the limited freedoms it enjoys today. Women’s freedoms not found in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the two Gulf States pushing for Assad’s overthrow and a return to a strict Islamist government and Sharia law dominance in Syria. Moreover, why is the caustic rhetoric US feminists deploy to vilify American equality imbalances strangely absent from news reports detailing Obama’s alliance with these misogynistic Gulf States?
The hypocrisy of feminists and the American gender equality brigades tolerate from the President they elected to level the playing field is mortifying. The protagonists of this Syrian conflict—Saudi Arabia and Qatar—will set Arab women’s rights—freedoms as possessions and compliant human incubators—back thousands of centuries. All supported by an Obama foreign policy.
Do American feminists now support international violations of women’s rights? Does the first lady, an outspoken critic of human rights abuses, now tolerate her husband’s support for two countries with some of the worst women’s rights records in the world? Two countries, if victorious, that will replace Syria’s tolerance with anti-woman Sharia law.
Where does Hillary Clinton stand on this? More importantly, why is no one asking her?