Sicko Saudi Arabia

Re Op-Ed Columnist: The Case for Illegal Mingling by Thomas L. Friedman in today's NY Times:

The government of Saudi Arabia "affirmed the sentence of 200 lashes for a 19-year-old Shiite girl who was sitting in a car with a male acquaintance last year when they were attacked by seven men who gang-raped both of them.

"The Saudi Justice Ministry said the young woman deserved 200 lashes and six months in prison, even though she had been raped, because she was guilty of “illegal mingling” — sitting in a car with a man who was not related to her."

What is the ideology which drives such barbarism? It has a name - Islam!

Now, Tom Friedman is Mr. Politically Correct, so what really galls him about this barbarism? "Two hundred lashes for a woman who was raped, under any circumstances in even the most traditional country, is barbaric — period." So far, so good. "But what also keeps tripping off my tongue is this phrase “illegal mingling.” It seems to me that if the Middle East could use more of anything these days it is more mingling — if not between the sexes then at least between the sects." So, he spends the rest of his column arguing for more "mingling". Too bad he doesn't have the courage to write what he no doubt is thinking: Islam is a barbaric ideology.

Tom quotes a report from Agence France-Presse: "“The Mahdi Army murdered and tortured and kidnapped people under Sharia law,” the police statement said. “They are the cause of the deaths of hundreds of people.”" Now, what the heck is Sharia? Islamic law! Yet, Tom is still focused on the sectarian strife.

The rationale behind Tom's thinking is then made plain: "The reason these events are important is that Iraq has become center stage for the struggle between a more moderate, modernizing Islamic outlook, advanced by the United States and some of its Iraqi allies, and another outlook, advanced by the Mahdi Army and Al Qaeda, that wants to “purify” the Muslim world of “the other.”

"The jihadists know that if they can defeat America — in the heart of their world — it would influence the whole region."

In other words, Tom is still trying to justify our insane invasion of Iraq, which he advocated. Still, he has learned a bit: "Attention: These pro-minglers are not Jeffersonian Democrats. But they do represent relatively more moderate strands of Sunnism and Shiism." Oh, I guess supporting the "moderate" Muslims is the reason why we are pouring blood and treasure into Iraq.

Finally, Tom ends with "Most Americans would still like to see us salvage something decent in Iraq — if it can be done at a reasonable cost."

Tom, nothing that can happen in Iraq will ever be worth the steep cost in blood and money that we have paid and have yet to pay. Those of us who have read your column for years have only one request of you: admit you were catastrophically wrong about Iraq, and stop pandering to the foreign Muslims. Until they turn Osama bin Laden over to us, they remain our mortal enemy.