Hell has no fury like a woman scorned!

dlofnep

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpUUOYRLW3k

Woman is shopping for nail polish in Saudi Arabia, when she is approached by religious police who want her to leave. Needless to say, she doesn't take any of their crap and wants her damn nail polish.

Crazy to think there are still countries that try to police stuff like this.

Zillah

Bet you a tenner she has friends in high places that she knows will crush them if they mess with her. She drops a name towards the end and while I have no idea who it is I bet he's a powerful figure for her to behave like that. Awesome none the less though.

The Mad Hatter

"You don't see other women here showing their hair."

ffs...

syklops

Zillah wrote: »

Bet you a tenner she has friends in high places that she knows will crush them if they mess with her. She drops a name towards the end and while I have no idea who it is.

He's a Saudi columnist and journalist. Sort of like an arabic Kevin Myers.

Fenian Army

syklops wrote: »

He's a Saudi columnist and journalist. Sort of like an arabic Kevin Myers.

Don't insult the poor man by saying he's like that cretin

MagicMarker

What date has been set for her beheading?

Galvasean

Interesting how the 'religious police' are full of bravado until the real police show up.

dlofnep

Did anyone read the news story a little while back, where these religious police stopped children from escaping a burning building, because they were not wearing their head scarves? 15 girls died as a result of it. (Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1874471.stm)

dlofnep

dlofnep wrote: »

Did anyone read the news story a little while back, where these religious police stopped children from escaping a burning building, because they were not wearing their head scarves? 15 girls died as a result of it. (Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1874471.stm)

Wow. That's dreadfully upsetting.

Rev Hellfire

Deleted User wrote: »

Wow. That's dreadfully upsetting.

But not wholly unsurprising.

dlofnep

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

But not wholly unsurprising.

Which is why it's even more upsetting

who the fug

Her husband or father is going be in the sh1t for that

Gbear

I'm confused. Why do shops sell nail polish if women aren't allowed to buy it?

Penn

dlofnep wrote: »

Did anyone read the news story a little while back, where these religious police stopped children from escaping a burning building, because they were not wearing their head scarves? 15 girls died as a result of it. (Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1874471.stm)

I f*cking hate religion. I really, really do....

The Mad Hatter

Gbear wrote: »

I'm confused. Why do shops sell nail polish if women aren't allowed to buy it?

Maybe their husbands are allowed buy it for them?

robindch

dlofnep wrote: »

Woman is shopping for nail polish in Saudi Arabia, when she is approached by religious police who want her to leave. Needless to say, she doesn't take any of their crap and wants her damn nail polish.

Most likely, she's in a mall, the call to prayer has gone out and she's decided to stay shopping. The guys looks like the Mutawee, the Saudi religious police whose job it is to hoover up strays and force them into religious services. She's a brave woman -- the lads occasionally have sticks and clubs to help sway the theologically undecided or impure. They leave foreigners alone.

The guy mentioned at 1:56 is 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn 'Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Lateef Aal ash-Shaikh (great name, btw), the current Grand Mufti.

Brown Bomber

dlofnep wrote: »

Did anyone read the news story a little while back,

Over 10 years ago you mean?

dlofnep wrote: »

where these religious police stopped children from escaping a burning building, because they were not wearing their head scarves? 15 girls died as a result of it. (Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1874471.stm)

Whatever gave you that idea? Nowhere in your article does it say so. Can you support your claim?

Sonics2k

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Whatever gave you that idea? Nowhere in your article does it say so. Can you support your claim?

Except for this bit

In a rare criticism of the kingdom's powerful "mutaween" police, the Saudi media has accused them of hindering attempts to save 15 girls who died in the fire on Monday.

Brown Bomber

Sonics2k wrote: »

Except for this bit

Reread the claim:

15 girls died as a result of it.

Then reread the section of the article that you've just quoted:

In a rare criticism of the kingdom's powerful "mutaween" police, the Saudi media has accused them of hindering attempts to save 15 girls who died in the fire on Monday.

And see if you can spot the not at all subtle difference.

Sonics2k

It either means

1) 15 girls died as a result *of the fire*
or
2) 15 girls died as a result *due to the mutaween interfering*

Either one is accurate in the context of the article. Why are you looking to kick off?

Turtwig

**A Wild Brown Bomber has appeared**

The Mad Hatter

What BB is getting at is that they are merely "accused" of stopping the girls from fleeing the building and thus surviving the fire. Obviously, for legal reasons, the BBC can't say outright that their actions caused the girls' death until it's proved in court. That could be seen as perverting the course of justice, or as slander.

Come on, though, BB - if this case did actually go to court it'd be open and shut.

Brown Bomber

Sonics2k wrote: »

It either means

1) 15 girls died as a result *of the fire*
or
2) 15 girls died as a result *due to the mutaween interfering*

Either one is accurate in the context of the article. Why are you looking to kick off?

Neither is accurate according to the BBC article which is itself a second-hand account based on quotes attributed anonymously.

I'd direct you towards this section:

Most of the victims were crushed in a stampede as they tried to flee the blaze.

dlofnep

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Over 10 years ago you mean?

Well, I only came across it a few months back. Who cares? The event still occurred - that's all that matters, and not your pedantry for dates.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Whatever gave you that idea? Nowhere in your article does it say so. Can you support your claim?

Um - the opening paragraph.

Saudi Arabia's religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress, according to Saudi newspapers.

I'm absolutely dumbfounded that you don't actually see a problem in a religious police force stopping schoolgirls from leaving a burning building because they were not wearing a head covering, but rather take more of an issue with how I have presented the article.

Here are the facts - a Islamic religious police force stopped young girls from fleeing a burning building, because they were not wearing head dresses. 15 girls died.

Quote from witness

One witness said he saw three policemen "beating young girls to prevent them from leaving the school because they were not wearing the abaya".

Now condemn this act and stop looking for ways to excuse it. Condemn this religious police force!

MagicMarker

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm absolutely dumbfounded that you don't actually see a problem in a religious police force stopping schoolgirls from leaving a burning building because they were not wearing a head covering, but rather take more of an issue with how I have presented the article.

I'm not...

Varied

If only all women in Saudi would stand up to these guys.

Brown Bomber

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

What BB is getting at is that they are merely "accused" of stopping the girls from fleeing the building and thus surviving the fire. Obviously, for legal reasons, the BBC can't say outright that their actions caused the girls' death until it's proved in court. That could be seen as perverting the course of justice, or as slander.

Come on, though, BB - if this case did actually go to court it'd be open and shut.

I take your point but it is only slander if it is untrue, the simple fact of the matter is that none of us here know exactly what happened. Recycled and poorly sourced articles on the BBC taken from Saudi media can't be trusted. Saudi media itself cannot be trusted therefore a little healthy scepticism is in order. I promise you I despise Islamic fascism and the House of Saud as much if not more than anyone else here but that doesn't mean that I will judge an event any different.

It appears the girls died as a result of overcrowding and lack of emergency preparedness not because some religous policeman put up a turnstyle in the exits.

Here is a later articlel from the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1893349.stm

dlofnep

Brown Bomber - you're still avoiding the issue. Girls were blocked from fleeing a burning building because they were not wearing the correct head dressing. Condemn this act. I'm waiting.

fair play to yer wan for standing up to them, i'm impressed

and fair play to what look like security standing around yer man and refusing to let him at her

i dont think it could have been a prayer thing robin, there's some people in the background sitting around

Brown Bomber

dlofnep wrote: »

Um - the opening paragraph.

In the opening paragraph the BBC explains howa single newspaper from the "Saudi media" alleges that these guys tried to prevent schoolgirls from leaving the school. It at no point says that anyone died because of this. You are bridging that gap yourself.

dlofnep

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In the opening paragraph the BBC explains howa single newspaper from the "Saudi media" alleges that these guys tried to prevent schoolgirls from leaving the school. It at no point says that anyone died because of this. You are bridging that gap yourself.

So do you condemn these religious police from stopping the girls from fleeing?

Brown Bomber

dlofnep wrote: »

Brown Bomber - you're still avoiding the issue. Girls were blocked from fleeing a burning building because they were not wearing the correct head dressing. Condemn this act. I'm waiting.

If it's true I condemn it with all that I am. The question is if. Even hypothetically I absolutely condemn it.

if it wasnt their fault it wouldnt have led to a reduction in their power

http://www.albawaba.com/blog_roundup/two-teachers-die-students-saved-another-saudi-girls-school-fire-401980

http://www.rense.com/general21/blz.htm

aside from anything else, they directly hindered rescue workers helping the girls
there is nothing ambiguous about it

dlofnep

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If it's true I condemn it with all that I am.

It is true.

Now condemn it. And stop adding clauses.

Brown Bomber

Like I said in a hypothethical situation where religous zealots contribute to the deaths of schoolgirls by preventing them leaving the scene of a fire due to their religous dogmatism I unreservedly condemn it. It's tragic. However, your link doesn't establish if this is what actually happened. and therefore the "I ****ing hate religion"" comments based on your article that clearly do not establish what you claim are premature, hysterical and an indication of an anti-religous bias IMO.

Zillah

dlofnep wrote: »

It is true.

Now condemn it. And stop adding clauses.

Uhm, he conceded that if the accusations are true then he condemns them. That's a win. Now you're bickering about how much stock one can put in journalism. This is literally the best result anyone has ever gotten from BB. Stop now.

Brown Bomber

bluewolf wrote: »

if it wasnt their fault it wouldnt have led to a reduction in their power

http://www.albawaba.com/blog_roundup/two-teachers-die-students-saved-another-saudi-girls-school-fire-401980

http://www.rense.com/general21/blz.htm

aside from anything else, they directly hindered rescue workers helping the girls
there is nothing ambiguous about it

According to "voice of the copts" (...Voice of the Copts, a nonprofit organization, fights the spread of Islamic supremacy and Sharia throughout the Western world through education, advocacy and action. By drawing attention to the suffering of Coptic Christians in Egypt, it endeavors to educate the Western world as to the chilling effect of Sharia (Islamic law...)"

who I'd never heard of until now but a quick perusal leaves me in no doubt as to their blatant anti-Islam agenda. Out of 3 op-eds on their front page one is defending notorious Islamophobe Geert Wilders and the other is penned by professional hatemonger Daniel Pipes. The third is called Fatwa: Islam's Murder by Fiat.

The other link is from disinformationist (?) Jeff Rense who believes in space aliens and bigfoot.

Dades

BB, if I may, the above would have been a better first post of yours in this thread. It's a far better defence than the interpretation of the wording which you started with.

So we're all agreed. If there's even an element of truth in this it's a despicable thing. Whether there is or not is now up for debate.

robindch

bluewolf wrote: »

i dont think it could have been a prayer thing robin, there's some people in the background sitting around

Still could have been the prayer thing -- the shops have to close during prayers and if she was inside trying to buy some nail varnish or whatever, then she'd be stopping the shop closing and the mutaween would be all over her like a bowl of warm saliva. The people in the background could be foreigners, or locals watching what's happening just before they nip into the mall's mosque (I believe all malls are required to have prayer rooms).

On the one occasion I saw them in one of Riyadh's main malls -- foreigners are recommended to be back in their hotel rooms during prayers and this one evening, I got my timing wrong -- the mutaween were threatening; not that it stopped a couple of teenage boys from running rings around them.

FouxDaFaFa

The point where there are 5 grown men (religious and normal police) standing in the frame discussing in utmost seriousness whether a woman should be removed for baring her hair and wearing nail polish is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen.

Fair play to her.

Rev Hellfire

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The other link is from disinformationist (?) Jeff Rense who believes in space aliens and bigfoot.

Hee I got a good laugh from that one, imagine believing in things which don't exist...

FouxDaFaFa

I commented on the video (a version allowing comments) just asking what had happened because the uploader said the Mutaween had brougt some kind of legal action against her. This was a response:

It is promiscuous legging wearing Western feminist like you with morals in the bin ,who are influencing such disgusting behavior .She will get disciplined ,if not done already and made an example of .Next time when you visit our countries mind your business or you will get into helluva of trouble.
الله أكبر (GOD IS GREAT

tayto lover

Penn wrote: »

I f*cking hate religion. I really, really do....

For God's sake ......

Banbh

The only reason this medieval hell-hole still exists is because the West - the US in particular - turns a blind eye to the atrocities of the Saudi elite. In return, the US sells the latest military hardware including anti-insurgency and crowd-control equipment along with training.
And Saudi Arabia sells oil.

tayto lover

robindch wrote: »

Most likely, she's in a mall, the call to prayer has gone out and she's decided to stay shopping. The guys looks like the Mutawee, the Saudi religious police whose job it is to hoover up strays and force them into religious services. She's a brave woman -- the lads occasionally have sticks and clubs to help sway the theologically undecided or impure. They leave foreigners alone.

The guy mentioned at 1:56 is 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn 'Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Lateef Aal ash-Shaikh (great name, btw), the current Grand Mufti.

They must have shocking big passport forms and driving licences over there. Probably goes by the name of Joe.

Zillah

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The other link is from disinformationist (?) Jeff Rense who believes in space aliens and bigfoot.

Space aliens are so much more likely to exist than Allah.

dlofnep

Zillah wrote: »

Uhm, he conceded that if the accusations are true then he condemns them. That's a win. Now you're bickering about how much stock one can put in journalism. This is literally the best result anyone has ever gotten from BB. Stop now.

You'll have to forgive my lack of faith in the sincerity of his post. While everyone else was shocked at the mere thought of children being blocked from leaving - it took him a number of posts to even acknowledge that it was wrong.

So if that's the best we can get from BB - there is something seriously messed up.

Brown Bomber

dlofnep wrote: »

You'll have to forgive my lack of faith in the sincerity of his post. While everyone else was shocked at the mere thought of children being blocked from leaving - it took him a number of posts to even acknowledge that it was wrong.

So if that's the best we can get from BB - there is something seriously messed up.

This is a really strange perspective. You believe that everybody should be uniformly "shocked" at the "mere thought" alone of something before this something has been established and that there is "something really messed up" for someone to reserve judgement before making condemnations. Bizarre.

Brown Bomber

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Hee I got a good laugh from that one, imagine believing in things which don't exist...

I don't understand the point you are trying to make...

sponsoredwalk

dlofnep wrote: »

You'll have to forgive my lack of faith in the sincerity of his post. While everyone else was shocked at the mere thought of children being blocked from leaving - it took him a number of posts to even acknowledge that it was wrong.

So if that's the best we can get from BB - there is something seriously messed up.

Wow...

Brown Bomber

Dades wrote: »

BB, if I may, the above would have been a better first post of yours in this thread. It's a far better defence than the interpretation of the wording which you started with.

So we're all agreed. If there's even an element of truth in this it's a despicable thing. Whether there is or not is now up for debate.

Perhaps. My first post was an attempt to establish if there was any corroborating evidence, a primary source or even a secondary article that even claims that "15 girls died because of this".

Also, I raised the issue of the innacurate labelling of the news item as "recently in the news" when in fact it was in fact over a decade old. I did a little search and the only media it was in "recently" was in the online Islamophobic hatemongers blogs and far-right and white supremacist forums.

If we turned this on it's head and the BBC published an article with Saudi media as the source claiming "Polls show Saudi women most happy and liberated in the world due to Islam" do you think the OP would link to it as a "truth"?

Do you think that there would be posters here quoting that article exclaiming "I ****ing love Religion!" (with multiple thankers)?

Of course this wouldn't happen. People would (rightly imo) counter the claims of the Saudi media in more-or-less the same ways I have here.