<p>@sorghum I am aware of the US interests. I did not say take foreign aid completely away, but diplomatic pressure can be used and things redirected etc. to send a message, without directly impacting US interests. The US does that all the time with it European partners. </p>
<p>I do think it impossible not to be political when it involves any president. There is nothing done by any president that is not calculated for its political impact first. So, while I do hear and understand your concern, not quite sure how to avoid. However, you may be correct that this should not even be discussed here - I assume the moderators will sort that out. </p>
<p>I may be misreading, but I have seen no swipe or criticism of the president’s religion - he is Christian. But, he does seem to allow for serious different standards from different religions when it comes to how and when he drops the hammer via the threat of foreign policy aid denial. That is kind of clear. </p>
<p>It also strikes me a bit odd that the current US policy seems to be rather malleable when it comes to the treatment of woman and the religious freedom of other countries. Some semblance of consistency is usually a necessary component of trust.</p>
<p>Maybe this is one of the times where the phrase “Sometimes, you just have to do the right thing” comes into play. Not letting this woman suffer this fate just seems like the right thing to do. Some things just jump out like that. </p>
<p>Not everything is political. Some things are just right or wrong. You can’t defend every critique on our leadership as such, and then try to turn it into what you think is wrong with our country. Or I guess you can, but that also seems pretty weak, and like you’re dismissing this woman’s plight as not important.</p>
<p>Right or wrong. And we are talking about this specific situation. It is horrific.</p>
<p>Gosh, maybe, as someone suggested upthread, we can start a Twitter campaign.</p>
<p>I’m not sure why that would be inappropriate. I think it may be an accurate reason for the silence.</p>
<p>Honestly, I’m never sure why we trade and finance some of these countries that do terrible things to women. It’s like it’s not important at all.</p>
<p>@sorghum Hum. OK, I do see how you read that as inappropriate re the president’s religion. In contrast, I read it as factual, as descriptive of the president’s background. You did a more in between the lines read than I did.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, you got my vote in hoping that is exactly what is happening. I have not lost hope yet.</p>
<p>“here is your answer when it comes to Sudan:”</p>
<p>@frugaldoctor, I suspect that is the answer for many of the countries that we help prop up in the Middle East. Look at how much money we have given Pakistan.</p>
<p>I always hope that vocal and international condemnation of government policy towards women will do something. Occasionally it seems to help for individual cases, but then, here we are again.</p>
<p>@sorghum I am aware of the trickiness of the situation. And, the same could be said of Uganda and Kenya re Russia and China and the threat of aid being taken away is being used there. I do not say just blanket take away aid, but there is leverage that just does not seem is being used effectively. I would be thrilled if I am wrong.</p>
<p>@frugaldoctor - I am not sure how you get from mentioning Michael Sam to the conclusion of my having modern-day homophobia. </p>
<p>The point is Sam was all over the news for many weeks and was one of the biggest stories. So, to acknowledge that it is a huge story and the president talked about and to him to you is a sign of homophobia? Logic totally lost on me there.</p>
<p>Maybe this little operating factoid has escaped you - if something is big in the news, it is legitimate to talk about, especially when the president chooses to address it. </p>
<p>And that was my point - the president chose to address Michael Sam making it an even bigger story. Only an idiot would not see that as the president saying “Hey, look, I think this is important.” All the things I listed are issues the president chose to address publicly over the last two weeks (more than once in some cases), with the Sudanese situation not being one. These are not obscure stories - they are leading stories that everyone knows - that is why I chose them. </p>
<p>To really put things in serious perspective - I simply mentioned a huge story; however, you are vigorously supporting and defending not wanting to help this woman. Whose actions / advice, if followed, would ensure damage and harm comes to a person? Yours or mine? </p>
<p>Not to worry though. Just because you refuse to see reason to help this woman, I have not reached the conclusion you are a modern-day misogynist. I am just assume you have a different world view than mine. Cool. I am simply not dumb enough to conclude I know that you do hate woman. Why? Because I do not know you and have never met you. Given your conclusion that I am a modern-day homophobe, I ask, “Have we met? Do you know me?” Just wondering…</p>
<p>@actingmt it should go without saying that the war on terror has not ended. We continue to need allies to protect our citizens until this war is over. Some of these allies will be bad guys who we share mutual enemies. But if you need a newer statement on that, please ready the State Department’s own statements. By the way, they are from June 2013 <a href=“http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5424.htm”>http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5424.htm</a> “Sudan has provided concrete cooperation against international terrorism since the September 11, 2001 terrorist strikes against the United States.”</p>
I’m not quite sure what you mean by this… Most Muslims would denounce this travesty and would say that it goes against true Islamic teachings, so denouncing this isn’t likely to offend many. Most people will agree.
And considering some of the things I’ve seen on Fox News, that statement is just not true.</p>
<p>
Again, I’m a bit lost.
Do people really think that speaking against extremists will make them look like they’re insulting all Muslims? Is that really what it’s come down to? I ask this as a genuine question.
There are some cases I know of where people who spoke against extremists were attacked… but that’s because in addition to that they insulted Muslims as a whole.</p>
<p>
This information is not correct. </p>
<p>I agree with what some have been saying about taking a stand, so to speak. International condemnation does help sometimes, and sanctions speak even louder then words.</p>
<p>@awcndb You are displaying selective reading. Your statement: “Just because you refuse to see reason to help this woman”. My statement: “Do I care about this Sudanese woman? Absolutely and so many others in this world.” </p>
<p>I applaud you for missing the point and creating an imaginary world where people who don’t agree with you don’t care about your cause. At least I know where you are coming from now. Just because the news channels make something “the biggest stories” doesn’t make it so in everyone’s world. I thought the kidnapped girls were a much bigger story than Sam’s story. But then again, I don’t work for Fox or CNN and I can’t draw people’s attention to that issue. Asking the president to step in is asking for the politics. Where was the outrage when countries stoned and put civilians to death for apostasy? It’s been going on for a while. Where was the outrage when the Sudanese girls were kidnapped? It has been late! I saw the outrage when Michael Sam kissed his alleged boyfriend! That was quick. But the news had been running the story on the Sudanese girls since April.</p>
<p>Well, international stories will always take a backseat to national stories. That’s not new and I’m not even sure it’s wrong. The news channels need an audience and we wouldn’t know about any of this if someone wasn’t covering it. But, news at home is always going to get more attention than news in some far flung place around the world. There is no shortage of attrocities going on right now that we will never hear about, too. I do have my doubts about Twitter diplomacy, but that’s another issue. </p>
<p>Sam hired a big-time PR guy to put out the fact that he was gay and make himself a famous name going into the draft. It was a calculated risk. He was not a sure thing, by far. But again, I don’t know what that has to do with this topic.</p>
<p>@Flossy You definitely have a point. However, some things do transcend just being a singular news story because they highlight a much bigger issue. I do think this is the case here. A situation does not have to involve big actions such as the invasion of Kuwait or the annexation of Crimea to indicate a much larger issue is afoot. Hopefully this woman is spared. That is my one and only wish. </p>
<p>Agreed. I think it’s very odd what becomes a national outrage and what goes largely unnoticed. Mostly though my issue is outrage is not action so I don’t really care all that much about outrage. Lately, I see a lot more caring than doing anything. It’s frustrating. And, the result is the same. Sadly. </p>
<p>Forced lectures, forced waiting periods, forced ultrasounds, fewer and fewer providers, murders of doctors, bombing of clinics, large swathes of the nation where there are no providers requiring travel of hundreds of miles…Roe v Wade has been steadily chipped away at, and the pace of the attacks has only stepped up. Funding is only one part of the picture.</p>
<p>The article I posted a few posts up is from the point of view of modern moderate Islam criticizing this act. </p>
<p>Some issues are are so entwined with politics that they become instant triggers. Mention the words religion, women’s rights, and they light a flame of emotion and dispute. This incident is one of them as it involves religions that are currently also associated with political topics. A liberal leader aligning with this woman might risk appearing to cross party lines. Perhaps the CNN article I posted is paving the way for our leaders to do so, as it explains this radical group in historic terms and why their archaic views should not be upheld today. </p>
<p>If we discuss this incident and diverge on other politically charged topics, we’re going to light up this board in controversy just long enough to be shut down. Politics and religion are secondary to what is at stake- her life.
Someone is being sentenced to death for believing what they want to believe and marrying who they choose to love. That isn’t a crime. We can potentially drop party and religious divisions and collectively plea for her safety.</p>