Treatment of Women in Iraq under Hussein

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Dreadsox

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
10,885
Behave Ladies or ELSE!!!!!

Situation for Women in Saddam's Iraq
In 1979, immediately upon coming to power, Saddam Hussein silenced all political opposition in Iraq and converted his one-party state into a cult of personality. Since then, his regime has systematically executed, tortured, imprisoned, raped, terrorized, and repressed the Iraqi people. Iraq is a nation rich in culture, with a long history of intellectual and scientific achievement, especially among its women. However, Saddam Hussein's brutal regime has silenced the voices of Iraq's women, along with its men, through violence and intimidation.

In Iraq under Saddam, if you are a woman, you could face:

Beheading. Under the pretext of fighting prostitution, units of "Fedayeen Saddam," the paramilitary organization led by Uday Hussein, Saddam's eldest son, have beheaded in public more than 200 women throughout the country, dumping their severed heads at their families' doorsteps. Many families have been required to display the victim's head on their outside fences for several days. These barbaric acts were carried out in the total absence of any proper judicial procedures and many of the victims were not engaged in prostitution, but were targeted for political reasons. For example, Najat Mohammad Haydar, an obstetrician in Baghdad, was beheaded after criticizing the corruption within health services. (Amnesty International Report, Iraq: Systematic Torture of Political Prisoners, August 2001; Iraqi Women's League in Damascus, Syria)

Rape. The Iraqi Government uses rape and sexual assault of women to achieve the following goals: to extract information and forced confessions from detained family members; to intimidate Iraqi oppositionists by sending videotapes showing the rape of female family members; and to blackmail Iraqi men into future cooperation with the regime. Some Iraqi authorities even carry personnel cards identifying their official "activity" as the "violation of women's honor." (U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2001, March 2002; Iraq Research and Documentation Project, Harvard University)


Torture. The Iraqi Government routinely tortures and kills female dissidents and the female relatives of Iraqi oppositionists and defectors. Victims include Safiyah Hassan, the mother of two Iraqi defectors, who was killed after publicly criticizing the Iraqi Government for killing her sons after their return to Iraq. Women in Saddam's jails are subjected to the following forms of torture: brutal beatings, systematic rape, electrical shocks, and branding. (U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2001, March 2002; U.S. Department of State, Iraq: A Population Silenced, December 2002)



Murder. In 1990, Saddam Hussein introduced Article 111 into the Iraqi Penal Code in a calculated effort to strengthen tribal support for his regime. This law exempts men who kill their female relatives in defense of their family's honor from prosecution and punishment. The UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women reported that more than 4,000 women have been victims of so-called "honor killings" since Article 111 went into effect. (UN Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, January 2002)
 
Disgusting. But far from unique.

Read up on women's treatment in places like Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan. Just as bad, and IMO, worse.
 
Re: Behave Ladies or ELSE!!!!!

Dreadsox said:
Situation for Women in Saddam's Iraq

What a great discovery! My only wish is that someone now write about "rights" of women in Saudi Arabia. "Rights" they enjoy according to the law by the way...
 
In addition to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen........don't forget Afghanistan. There are reports of terribly abusive treatment of women in that country also. The Taliban still has power in that country, even if they no longer run the central government. Pakistan, too. Ugh. All of those countries treat their women like :censored:.
 
Matt, I realize that you're trying to be sympathetic here, but the title of this thread is pushing the limits of taste. "Behavior" is for children. The treatment you insist on describing is gender-based torture. Please do not make light of it.

What was the point of this thread? To substantiate the reasons for the invasion? If not, what?


I'm so fucking sick of this forum. It's one long, pointless fight. :tsk:
 
Not only do they use rape against Iraqis, but I believe they also raped a female U.S. POW during the '91 Gulf war. They've probably done the same thing to the present female POW.
 
Not to mention Saddam's son Uday, who has as one of his "hobbies" (the media description, not mine) picking any woman he wishes to rape-including 13 year old girls. Maybe even younger than that, who knows for sure? And this is not US media fabrication-it comes from Iraqis who have witnessed it.

By the way, I didn't take offense to the thread title-I thought it was just being sarcastic, and not any sort of way of substantiating the reasons for the invasion. The facts are the facts, and I find it very difficult to believe that Dreadsox, or anyone else here, would EVER make light of gender based torture. I'm not meaning to be argumentative w/ you at all Martha-just my view on it .
 
I know, but the use of the words "behave" and "ladies" trivializes this kind of thing. I still don't see the point of this thread.


Have fun everyone. Argue about the war all you want. I hope you won't still be arguing in 15 years.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:

By the way, I didn't take offense to the thread title-I thought it was just being sarcastic, and not any sort of way of substantiating the reasons for the invasion. The facts are the facts, and I find it very difficult to believe that Dreadsox, or anyone else here, would EVER make light of gender based torture. I'm not meaning to be argumentative w/ you at all Martha-just my view on it .

Thank you ..... For giving me the benefit of the doubt. I NEVER meant to "TRIVIALIZE" anything. Sarcasm is not one of my better qualities and if it offended you Martha I apologize to you and anyone else.

What is the point of this thread? What is the point of any thread?

This one I found because I was researching the group of 30,000 Fedayeen that have been giving our troops so much trouble. I came across this. I find it to be further evidence that the time for action is now. Maybe some people were not aware of these things that have been going on.

Yes, it is upsetting, very upsetting.
 
Last edited:
I'm not offended at the name of the thread. I don't think Dreadsox or anyone else here would post a note trivializing anything. I actually don't feel like I'm here to *argue* about the war in Iraq. I'm trying to learn about it and keep informed about it. I don't have to worry about some :censored: posting a bunch of crummy notes because the mods keep it nice. Man, I've seen some really flamey notes about France, etc, etc on other lists. I'm glad that :censored: garbage isn't here.:yes:
 
Perhaps Martha is talking more about the fact that most debates regarding many aspects of this war, just go round and round in circles Verte. I don't want to put words in Martha's mouth or anything, but I thought it was more the fight get understanding on a point of view, not necessarily fighting with people here.

Guess we can safely add Iraq onto the growing list of countries that not only lack respect for their women but torture and abuse them in their daily life. Its weird, but watching the news the other day, I saw that woman scientist who is believed to have been instrumental in building up the chemical weapons program for his regime. I guess she was too valuable to be considered as lowly as the average citizen.
 
martha said:
I know, but the use of the words "behave" and "ladies" trivializes this kind of thing. I still don't see the point of this thread.


Have fun everyone. Argue about the war all you want. I hope you won't still be arguing in 15 years.

The title was easily seen as a 'hook' and to get ppl to open the thread.

It is known that Matt the author of the thread respects women.

Maybe some can start a protest march if need be;):p :)

DB9
 
I still think that were in Iraq for just for oil.:angry:

Britain
Spain
and
The United States and 30 other nations are not in Iraq for-

the liberation of Iraqi ppl
so ppl will no longer have-
-their tongues rip out if they oppose their govt.
- be imprisoned in they have anti govt marches or rallies

-their limbs cut off if accused of a crime
-beatened by Saddams bodyguards for no good reason
-executed if they oppose their leaders
-have their loved ones raped and have to watch to be intimidated


no no no,
were in Iraq
only
for
oil.

I need to go to antiwar- Pro Saddam rally now:angry:

thank u
DB9
 
If that's why we're in Iraq, diamond, how come it took the deaths of 3000 people to put us in Afghanistan after years of oppression by the Taliban? How come we are doing business with China despite the fact that they do the same things to women, including forced sterilization?

Answer: Well, which country has Starbucks, McDonald's and Coca-Cola and which country does not?

Yes, we do need to help the people of Iraq from these horrible things but how are we helping Iraq by killing thousands of innocent people? What is the difference between Saddam slaughtering Iraq people and the U.S. slaughtering Iraqi people? And why are we abandoning our attacks on Osama bin Laden to go after a guy that may or may not have sort of maybe helped kill innocent Americans?

sorry, I'm playing a bit of a devil's advocate in this but I honestly believe that this war isn't as cut and dry as diamond's argument makes it out to be.
 
Angela Harlem said:
Perhaps Martha is talking more about the fact that most debates regarding many aspects of this war, just go round and round in circles Verte. I don't want to put words in Martha's mouth or anything, but I thought it was more the fight get understanding on a point of view, not necessarily fighting with people here.

Oh, heck, I agree with Martha. These debates are just going in circles. I'm still mainly in the anti-war camp myself; I just don't want to get too knee-jerky about it. I haven't changed my opinion of Rumsfeld in particular in the last six months. They have yet to really sell me on this war. 'Nuff said.
 
Why is the US in Iraq right now? The answer is that we, the people, do not really know. Everyone has a theory, but only our leaders really know for sure. Every time I see one of these debates, I just shake my head, because, while it is very interesting to hear all of these theories, it is ultimately all pure conjecture. This is not a black and white issue, where the answer will be one word like oil, money, politics, humanity, freedom, justice, revenge, or terrorism.

I believe that the biggest problem with the whole war is transparency within the government. Americans are not sure that they can trust their leaders' motives and there is not enough hard evidence to prove their intentions. If we could fully trust our government, then we would take Bush at his word - that this war is for our future protection and to free the Iraqi people from oppression. Since many of us did not vote for Bush (or respect him) in the first place, and we just had an experience with a dishonest President last time around (along with others in the past), it makes perfect sense that everyone questions him.

All we know for sure right now is that we are in the middle of a dangerous war, which could spill over to our neck of the woods at any time in the form of terrorism because of increased anti-US sentiment.
 
Hawk269 said:
Why is the US in Iraq right now? The answer is that we, the people, do not really know. Everyone has a theory, but only our leaders really know for sure. Every time I see one of these debates, I just shake my head, because, while it is very interesting to hear all of these theories, it is ultimately all pure conjecture. This is not a black and white issue, where the answer will be one word like oil, money, politics, humanity, freedom, justice, revenge, or terrorism.

I believe that the biggest problem with the whole war is transparency within the government. Americans are not sure that they can trust their leaders' motives and there is not enough hard evidence to prove their intentions. If we could fully trust our government, then we would take Bush at his word - that this war is for our future protection and to free the Iraqi people from oppression. Since many of us did not vote for Bush (or respect him) in the first place, and we just had an experience with a dishonest President last time around (along with others in the past), it makes perfect sense that everyone questions him.

All we know for sure right now is that we are in the middle of a dangerous war, which could spill over to our neck of the woods at any time in the form of terrorism because of increased anti-US sentiment.


We sure don't. I don't feel like I know why my government is doing this stuff. And just because it happens to be my government doesn't mean I support it. I don't question the motives of the troops; I think they are sincere. I question the government's motives. I'm not sure what they're after.
 
Unfortunately, much of this thread can be applied to other Islamic nations. In fact, many women *fear* losing Saddam, because they aren't forced to wear burqas or stay at home all the time. Lest we forget, Saddam is technically a secular dictator. Go across the border to Saudi Arabia and women are in much worse shape.

A biased article based partly in fact, glossing over others.

Melon
 
To any and all who said the nice things I thank you. I am NOT happy that the title of the thread was changed. I think it reinforces an opinion of me that is not true. I was not "trivilaizing" nor was I "making light of it".

Peace
 
I dont see the big deal with changing the title.

I think this title is more appropriate.

Though personally I didnt find it offensive.
 
Dreadsox said:
To any and all who said the nice things I thank you. I am NOT happy that the title of the thread was changed. I think it reinforces an opinion of me that is not true. I was not "trivilaizing" nor was I "making light of it".

Peace

I guess not, but I wouldn't worry about it. It's not like you said or did anything that was wrong. I don't think that's being implied by anyone.
 
I understand that the way they treat women in Saudi Arabia may be different than the way we treat women in the U.S. but how much of that is an oppressive society and how much is simply religious beliefs that don't agree with western beliefs? I mean, in the U.S. women get paid a fraction of what men get paid. Most are expected to stay at home to raise children. We have to fight for abortion rights. We don't get medical coverage for birth control while men get covered for Viagra etc. etc. etc. Just because we don't wear veils and can drive cars does not mean we're not discriminated against in this country.

On the flip side of that, Qatar is a great example of a country allowing more rights for women. The king's wife is directly involved in helping to boost the country's educational status in the world and works harder than most First Ladies in the U.S. Women in that country are given many more rights than most in the Middle East. So it then becomes a question of whether it really IS about religion.
 
sharky said:

On the flip side of that, Qatar is a great example of a country allowing more rights for women. The king's wife is directly involved in helping to boost the country's educational status in the world and works harder than most First Ladies in the U.S. Women in that country are given many more rights than most in the Middle East. So it then becomes a question of whether it really IS about religion.

60 Minutes did a segment on Qatar about three weeks ago. It was quite informative and I learned quite a bit. If the King does not get killed, he may actually bring about democracy before all is said and done.
 
Back
Top Bottom