Stop it, Naomi, my head hurts!

Not long ago she found sex under the burqa.

Now she tells us the Afghans are “a conquered people:”

Obama should apologise for kidnapping Afghans and for holding them at Bagram without due process of law, writes Naomi Wolf at Al Jizz:

“Burning a conquered people’s sacred texts sends an unmistakable message: you can do anything to these people,” says Wolf.

The Afghans are a waring people, Naomi, and they have never been conquered. 

But wait, there’s more:

“Quran burnings were not carried out on some street in Kabul, but at Bagram. That is, Qurans were burned at a US facility that meets the dictionary definition of a concentration camp.”

The bitch is getting crazier by the day. I can’t believe we are sharing the same planet.

NEW YORK – In the wake of the Koran-burning by troops at the United States’ Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, protests continue to escalate, and the death toll mounts. In the process, three US blind spots have become obvious.

One is that of the US media, whose coverage simply underscores – and amplifies – the stunning cluelessness that triggered the protests in the first place. Professional journalists are obliged to answer five questions: who, what, where, why, and how. But, reading reports from The Associated Press, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, among others, I searched exhaustively before I could form any picture of what had actually been done to the Korans in question. Not only did accounts conflict; none offered a clear notion of who had allegedly done what, let alone why or how.

Were Korans burned, as one US report had it, under the oversight of US military officials? Or were they brought by soldiers for incineration, as another versionmaintained, as part of a haul of “extremist literature” and prisoners’ personal communications, with Afghan workers alerting others at the base to the nature of the material?

These murky accounts – with no clear subjects or actions (The New York Times, incredibly, managed not to describe the burning at all) – reflect what happens when major news outlets appear simply to take dictation from the Pentagon.

The second US blind spot is the politicization of this terrible affront. Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has called Obama’s apology a “surrender,” while another Republican contender, Rick Santorum, is offended that anyone is suggesting that the US should bear any “blame.”

This absence of perspective reveals the cultural ignorance that has turned recent US foreign interventions into political catastrophes. I, too, come from an Abrahamic religion, Judaism, which shares strong roots with Islam. In both faiths, sacred texts are treated as if they are, in a sense, living beings. Jews, too, give them “burials’ when they are too old to use, and treat them ritualistically while they are “alive,” using silver pointers to avoid profaning them with human hands, dressing them in velvet jackets, and kissing them when they fall to the ground.

Burning a conquered people’s sacred texts sends an unmistakable message: you can do anything to these people. As Heinrich Heine put it, referring to the Spanish Inquisition‘s burning of the Koran, “Where they burn books, so too will they in the end burn human beings.” Jews understand that very well: from the Inquisition to Cossack massacres to Kristallnacht, the aggressors destroyed Torahs as a logical and well-understood precursor to destroying Jews.

The third blind spot is almost too painful to bear having to address – which, on a charitable interpretation, might explain why not one mainstream US media report has done so: the burnings were not carried out on some street in Kabul, but at Bagram. That is, Korans were burned at a US facility that meets the dictionary definition of a concentration camp.

In 2009, Spiegel Online ran a portrait gallery about Bagram titled “America’s Torture Chamber.” In “The Forgotten Guantánamo,” it reported that 600 people were being held at Bagram without charge. All were termed “unlawful enemy combatants,” allowing the US to claim that they have no right to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. A military prosecutor said that, compared to Bagram, Guantánamo Bay was “a nice hotel.”

Indeed, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, invariably described in the US as “the self-proclaimed chief architect of 9/11,” told the Red Cross that at Bagram he had been suspended by shackles and sexually assaulted: “I was made to lie on the floor. A tube was inserted into my anus and water poured inside.” Another prisoner, Raymond Azar, testified that ten FBI agents had abducted him, shown him photos of his family, and told him that if he didn’t “cooperate,” he would never see them again.

The BBC collated testimony in 2010 from nine prisoners confirming that human-rights abuses continued at Bagram. The prisoners independently described “a secret prison” inside the prison, called “the black hole.” Prisoners were still being subjected at the time to freezing temperatures, sleep deprivation, and “other abuses.” One testified that a US soldier had used a rifle to knock out a row of his teeth, and that he was forced to dance to music whenever he needed to use the bathroom.

Another investigation confirmed similar allegations in 2010, and last month the BBC reported that Bagram’s prison population had reached 3,000, while an Afghan-led investigation found still more allegations of ongoing torture, including freezing temperatures and sexual humiliations.

Of course, since the US military can detain anyone in Afghanistan, and hold him or her without charge in these conditions forever, the entire country lives under the shadow of torture at Bagram. The Koran burnings are a potent symbol of that systemic threat.

So, while Obama should continue to apologize for the Koran burnings, we must understand that Afghans’ rage is a response to an even deeper, rawer wound. Obama should also apologize for kidnapping Afghans; for holding them at Bagram without due process of law; for forcing them into cages, each reportedly holding up to 30 prisoners; for denying them Red Cross/Red Crescent visits; for illegally confiscating family letters; for torturing and sexually abusing them; and for casting a pall of fear over the country.

The Koran forbids that kind of injustice and cruelty. So does the Bible.

You never read the Koran or the Bible, Naomi. Stop lying!


9 thoughts on “Stop it, Naomi, my head hurts!”

  1. She must be approaching menopause (with apologies to all the decent and intelligent women of that age, thankfully the majority – I hope!), because quite a number of the strident lovers of Muslims, the position of women in Islam, paedophilia, Burka, polygamy and all the other islamist niceties, are of that vintage.

  2. She’s a mouth-piece retard, parked in some rich iSlamicyt’s pocket, playing pocket-pool…, wait.. sorry. Let me sincerely apologize to those unfortunates who are mentally-handicapped thru no fault of their own.

  3. Really Naomi?

    Are you going to demand the same of Afghan’s & other muslims, when they offend my sensibilities?

    Such as me having to look upon muslims carrying offensive signs when I have seen them in past gatherings in and around London with signs saying: “Soon you will all be muslims”, “Death to the British”, “the Queen will bow to Allah” etc., etc…I guess then you would say it is their right to freedom of speech when the have signs stating they will behead me.

  4. I couldn’t read her entire article, but I read the last comment about the Koran banning such things and so does the Bible. I guess my question is, has she read the Koran? And I better ask too, has she actually read the Bible? Because they are completely different.

    So, who thinks she will convey to Islam?

  5. “has she read the Koran? And I better ask too, has she actually read the Bible? ”

    Of course not. Naomi gets first hand information from Queen Ranja of Jordan.

    She wouldn’t lie to her, right?

    Unfortunately for us all, Naomi is not alone in the swamp of the confused:

    New Yorker’s Remnick to Israel–Screw You

    This one, by the New Yorker’s David Remnick, is one of the bitchiest and most venomous little pieces of anti-Israel invective I have read in some time. Not only does Remnick equate Israel with the tyrannical non-democracies of Egypt and Syria–yes, Syria–but he has the unalloyed chutzpah to claim that Israel, a democracy from the get-go, “is another state in the region that is embroiled in a crisis of democratic becoming.”

    Sorry, Dave. It is not “becoming” but has long since “become”–which, for progressive Jews of the Remnick ilk is precisely the problem, since Israel “as is” is unbecomingly anti-“progressive” and not the “social justice” utopia for which they pine. And don’t even get him/them started on those “settlements”…:
    The political corrosion begins, of course, with the occupation of the Palestinian territories—the subjugation of Palestinian men, women, and children—that has lasted for forty-five years. Peter Beinart, in a forthcoming and passionately argued polemic, “The Crisis of Zionism,” is just the latest critic to point out that a profoundly anti-democratic, even racist, political culture has become endemic among much of the Jewish population in the West Bank, and jeopardizes Israel proper. The explosion of settlements, encouraged and subsidized by both Labor and Likud governments, has led to a large and established ethnocracy that thinks of itself as a permanent frontier. In 1980, twelve thousand Jews lived in the West Bank, “east of democracy,” Beinart writes; now they number more than three hundred thousand, and include Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s wildly xenophobic Foreign Minister. Lieberman has advocated the execution of Arab members of parliament who dare to meet with leaders of Hamas. His McCarthyite allies call for citizens to swear loyalty oaths to the Jewish state; for restrictions on human-rights organizations, like the New Israel Fund; and for laws constricting freedom of expression.
    The New Israel Fund yet? That pseudo-Zionist racket? The New Israel Fund is so “human rights-y” that it funds efforts, including Arab ones, that aim to undermine and/or destroy Israel. In that sense, it’s like a vegan who invests money in a steak house (thereby acquiring a stake in steak), and who can’t understand why all the other vegans are upset with him. As for that poseur Beinart, he’s fast closing in on Noam Chomsky as the Jewish “progressive” whose anti-Zionist caterwauling has done Israel the most harm.


Comments are closed.