Actually, it looks like her family is Hezbollah
Regardless what one thinks of beauty pageants, this is analogous to when black women first became pageant winners - another milestone.
So? I couldn’t care less about the pageant but fail to see why we should hold her family’s beliefs against her.
If a Jewish Miss New York whose parents were sabras were chosen should the headline read “Zionist NY Kibbutznik Wins”?
As far as I know, beauty pageants are based on overall aesthetic appearances, not on personal ideology. The climate in this country is to reduce individuals to a small set of beliefs that can be easily labeled and criticized by opposing ideologues. However, that’s not the purpose of pageants at all: it is to objectify women, and reward/punish them for how we perceive them externally.
Not sure which is better, actually. :eek:
Not to be simplistic or anything, but I’m guessing that if her family are liberal enough muslims to allow a daughter to be in a beauty pageant (that presumably included a swimsuit portion), they most likely don’t have bomb parts stored in the closets, right?
It’s Ms. Burkha USA you gotta watch out for!
Amen manualman! (BTW, that was laugh out loud funny too.
I apologize for my forthrightness, but no. it is not. Having a black woman win was a step for equality. Having an active supporter of the black panthers or the Aryan Nation win, would have been the equivalent, and would not be tolerated then or now. It would not be just another milestone.
If you had read the article/blog. This was the key quote:
***Rima Fakih, Miss Michigan USA, who will compete in Sunday Night’s pageant broadcast on NBC, is a Dearbornistan Shi’ite Muslim who is a supporter of Hezbollah and used the pageant name at a forum promoting Islamic subjugation of women./*I]
If this is true, she ought to have been disqualified. Those who support terrorist organizations: left, right, Islamist, Christian, Communist, cannot by definition represent American values. If she herself, does not support Hezbollah, then I agree with those who say she cannot be held accountable for her families values. But if she actually supports Hezbollah, who killed more Americans than any other terrorist group before 9/11, then she can no more represent the USA than a member of the KKK, the Aryan Nation, or any racist terrorist group.
Even if her parents are supporters of Hezbollah, given her stated and implied attitudes, I highly doubt that she is one. Also, if a Muslim, she is probably not particularily devout.
Apparently, she has relatives that span the spectrum, not surprising given that her family is quite large.
“We’re very proud as Lebanese-Americans and as Lebanese that Rima reached this point despite all the pressures and stereotyping about Arabs and Lebanese. She made it. She fought and reached her goal,” Rana said.
Local officials said the Fakih family is one of the largest in the village that has a population of about 10,000 people and surrounding areas.
As is common among Lebanon’s Shiites, Fakih comes from a large, extended clan that includes everything from supporters of the Islamic militant groups Hezbollah and Amal to secular Shiites and even communists.
She also supports Arizona’s immigration law, so I figure Rush would love her.:rolleyes:
Actually, much of the research on terrorism suggests that these stereotypes are quite misleading. While it is true that Islamists are logically unlikely to participate in beauty pagaents, there is ample evidence that Islamist terrorists are more likely to come from the middle classes, particularly well educated, uppwardly mobile, cosmopolitan, Muslim populations, than from the poor and backward. Moreover, many terrorists (see the 9/11 hijackers) publicly lead a liberal Western lifestyle so as to better fit into the culture. Not saying I don’t see the irony and humor here, just saying don’t take that for serious argument.
But that is exactly the issue. Is the claim accurate? The blogger who made the claim offers no evidence.
Honestly, I think this is a very questionable thread, with a very questionable blogger “news” source. Schlussel’s writing style (Dearbornistan??) doesn’t inspire confidence that she is accurate or objective.
That I agree with. This may be slander. Her family ties are evidence, but far from conclusive about her own views. I was strongly objecting to Rich O’s “no big deal reaction” above. If she supports a terrorist group, any terroris group, then it is a big deal. But your are correct that the blogger does little more than assert the case based on familial ties. Hopefully more comes out later either to embarrass the pagaent, or to clear her name.
…Fakih was born into a powerful Shiite family in a village in southern Lebanon that was heavily bombed during the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war. But she and her sister said the family celebrates both Muslim and Christian faiths and prefer to be referred to as Lebanese, Arabs or Arab-Americans…
…“We’re very proud as Lebanese Americans and as Lebanese that Rima reached this point despite all the pressures and stereotyping about Arabs and Lebanese. She made it. She fought and reached her goal,” her sister said.
Pageant officials said historical pageant records were not detailed enough to show whether Fakih was the first Arab-American, Muslim or immigrant to win the Miss USA title. The pageant started in 1952 as a local bathing suit competition in Long Beach, Calif…
Egad! What has this Pageant turned into?:
…During the interview portion of the competition, Fakih was asked whether she thought birth control should be paid for by health insurance, and she said she believed it should because it’s costly.
“I believe that birth control is just like every other medication even though it’s a controlled substance,” Fakih said…
any of a category of behavior-altering or addictive drugs, as heroin or cocaine, whose possession and use are restricted by law.
**Keep us all healthy.
If she has her way, will all the addicts will want their heroin or cocaine (pot?) supplied?
+Peace In Christ.
Her words could have come from half of American Catholic women out there. But then it’s easier to point fingers at people who purport to be different, eh?
Good that you caught that, Dawn, but I think that the young woman was simply confused about what “controlled substance” means. She may have meant that birth control drugs have to be prescribed and can’t be bought over-the-counter. It makes more sense that way.
This is such a misleading statement. The “Americans” killed by Hezbollah (as well as by many other Lebanese resistance factions) were soldiers in uniform who were part of a foreign military occupation protecting the Israeli invaders and attempting to impose an unwanted dictatorship on the country. It was not terrorism and bears not the slightest similarity with 9/11.
If this is a “milestone”, what is the destination?
[quote="Kadaveri, post:18, topic:198690"]
This is such a misleading statement. The "Americans" killed by Hezbollah (as well as by many other Lebanese resistance factions) were soldiers in uniform who were part of a foreign military occupation protecting the Israeli invaders and attempting to impose an unwanted dictatorship on the country. It was not terrorism and bears not the slightest similarity with 9/11.
I absolutely disagree. The American forces in Lebanon were there as a peacekeeping force. They were not actively engaged in a war and thus they were not a combatant. They were a peacekeeping force approved by a recognized international agreement. Both the Israeli government and the legal government of Lebanon accepted the legality of the presence of the three nation Multi-National Force (MNF). They were there both for the benefit of the Lebanese government, and to allow for a peaceful withdrawal of the Israeli forces. As such they were not a legal target. (I also might add the Israeli forces would never had entered Lebanon if not for the illegal provocations by Hezbollah, which were not condoned by the Lebonese government. I will, however, concede that the Israeli forces, which initially acted in self-defense, exceeded their legitimate need for self defense, which in turn necessitated the presence of an international peace keeping force.)
Moreover, the force that attacked the MNF (Hezbollah) was not the legal government of Lebanon, and thus had no legal right under international law to commit an act of war. Such acts, even when committed against military forces are commonly labelled acts of terrorism. (I could get even more technical and point out that the rules of engagement do not allow you to attack the enemies forces when off duty, but this would be a technical point only to relied on if Hezbollah was a legal combatant, which it was not, or if the US marines were not a legal presence, which they were.)
To provide a textbook definition of terrorism: "Terrorism is the use of violence, or the threat of violence, in violation of international laws and norms, to cause fear in order to meet a political end."
Because it is not a legally recognized state Hezbollah cannot use violence against a state to further its ends. Only the Lebanese government could do so.
Hezbollah violated international law by attacking a peace keeping force. It did so to try and cause fear among the American, French and Italian populations and thus achieve the withdrawal of their peacekeeping forces (a political goal).
Hezbollah killed 241 Americans in the 1982 barracks attack alone. The next year, in 1983, Hezbollah also killed 63 in its attack on the US Embassy (an even more obvious violation of international law). If you add in all the hostages Hezbollah killed in its other attacks (all acts of international terrorism), Hezbollah killed more than 300 Americans, by far the worst record before 9/11.
In sum I reassert my original argument. Prior to 9/11 Hezbollah killed more Americans than any other terrorist organizaiton.