life gets worse for Iraqi women

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

Irvine511

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Messages
34,519
Location
the West Coast
[q] BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The images in the Basra police file are nauseating: Page after page of women killed in brutal fashion -- some strangled to death, their faces disfigured; others beheaded. All bear signs of torture.

The women are killed, police say, because they failed to wear a headscarf or because they ignored other "rules" that secretive fundamentalist groups want to enforce.

"Fear, fear is always there," says 30-year-old Safana, an artist and university professor. "We don't know who to be afraid of. Maybe it's a friend or a student you teach. There is no break, no security. I don't know who to be afraid of."

Her fear is justified. Iraq's second-largest city, Basra, is a stronghold of conservative Shia groups. As many as 133 women were killed in Basra last year -- 79 for violation of "Islamic teachings" and 47 for so-called honor killings, according to IRIN, the news branch of the U.N.'s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

One glance through the police file is enough to understand the consequences. Basra's police chief, Gen. Abdul Jalil Khalaf, flips through the file, pointing to one unsolved case after another.

"I think so far, we have been unable to tackle this problem properly," he says. "There are many motives for these crimes and parties involved in killing women, by strangling, beheading, chopping off their hands, legs, heads."

"When I came to Basra a year ago," he says, "two women were killed in front of their kids. Their blood was flowing in front of their kids, they were crying. Another woman was killed in front of her 6-year-old son, another in front of her 11-year-old child, and yet another who was pregnant."

The killers enforcing their own version of Islamic justice are rarely caught, while women live in fear.

Boldly splattered in red paint just outside the main downtown market, a chilling sign reads: "We warn against not wearing a headscarf and wearing makeup. Those who do not abide by this will be punished. God is our witness, we have notified you."

The attacks on the women of Basra have intensified since British forces withdrew to their base at the airport back in September, police say. Iraqi security forces took over after British troops pulled back, but are heavily infiltrated by militias.

And tracking the perpetrators of these crimes is nearly impossible, Khalaf says, adding that he doesn't have control of the thousands of policemen and officers.

"We're trying to trace crimes carried out by an anonymous enemy," he says.

Amnesty International has raised concern about the increasing violence toward women in Iraq, saying abductions, rapes and "honor killings" are on the rise.

"Politically active women, those who did not follow a strict dress code, and women [who are] human rights defenders were increasingly at risk of abuses, including by armed groups and religious extremists," Amnesty said in a 2007 report.

Sometimes, it's just the color of a woman's headscarf that can draw unwanted attention.

"One time, one of my female colleagues commented on the color of my headscarf," Safana says. "She said it would draw attention ... [and I should] avoid it and stick to colors like gray, brown and black."

This extremist ideology enrages many secular Muslim women, who say it's a misrepresentation of Islam.

Sawsan, another woman who works at a university, says the message from the radicals to women is simple: "They seem to be sending us a message to stay at home and keep your mouth shut."

After the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, Sawsan says, the situation was "the best." But now, she says, it's "the worst."

"We thought there would be freedom and democracy and women would have their rights. But all the things we were promised have not come true. There is only fear and horror.[/q]
 
Well, we've clearly done our job well! :happy: :| It's nice to know that things have gotten progressively worse since we've arrived. I'm not an expert on military force and war, but I'm guessing that's not quite the way things are supposed to go.
 
martha said:
Does this count as things being better off in Iraq after we invaded their country? :scratch: Can someone form the "war is good" party clarify this?

Well that's why 100-year-McCain is gonna stay there till we do this right.
 
martha said:
Does this count as things being better off in Iraq after we invaded their country? :scratch: Can someone form the "war is good" party clarify this?

The conservatives couldn't stop the women's rights movement here, so I'm sure they're proud of enabling it's destruction abroad .:hi5:
 
You know what my liberal fantasy is? Not cry-baby Republicans staying home because their boy didn't get nominated.

It's someone who thinks this war is working actually addressing shit like this. Really talking about the steps backward in that country since the invasion. Talking about how women are treated now and what the fuck they're going to do about it.

It's a fantasy, though, because those idiot Republicans couldn't give any less of a shit about how women are treated around the world if they tried. They really couldn't.
 
martha said:
You know what my liberal fantasy is? Not cry-baby Republicans staying home because their boy didn't get nominated.

It's someone who thinks this war is working actually addressing shit like this. Really talking about the steps backward in that country since the invasion. Talking about how women are treated now and what the fuck they're going to do about it.

It's a fantasy, though, because those idiot Republicans couldn't give any less of a shit about how women are treated around the world if they tried. They really couldn't.

You communist! There you go aiding terrorism again. Excuse me, I have to go build my bunker to protect against the round of attacks our country is sure to face if a *le gasp* Democrat is elected president. You know what Mitty boy says: If you're not a Republican you are with Al-Queda. Can't let that happen!:happy: :|
 
martha said:
You know what my liberal fantasy is? Not cry-baby Republicans staying home because their boy didn't get nominated.


Mine is for all of those Republican chickenhawks to enlist.

Or, the draft. Now that would end the war in what, 4 days?
 
I don't think many in either party would see "how women are treated around the world" as cause for aggressive intervention (political or military) in and of itself. In theory eradicating militia groups would also put an end to the trends the article is describing, since those are really just another extension of the general extremism of these groups. Whether that's possible in practice is another story.
 
I'm wondering if there's an accurate record of the number of women maimed/killed in Basra in the years before the war began. The city's population is 2.6 million. It might provide some perspective........religion-inspired violence and honor killings were not invented in the last five years. :shrug:
 
Bluer White said:
I'm wondering if there's an accurate record of the number of women maimed/killed in Basra in the years before the war began. The city's population is 2.6 million. It might provide some perspective........religion-inspired violence and honor killings were not invented in the last five years. :shrug:


You're right! I don't think any of us are disputing that. However, we were told that the reason we were going to Iraq in the first place was to take out Saddam Hussein's regime with it's WMD's that were found to be nonexistent. When the American public began to call our government on that, the war was spun as liberation of the Iraqi people. We managed to take out their dictator who had killed many of his people, yet we also created a breeding ground for terrorists and insurgent groups that were not there before we invaded. As long as we're involved there, more people will continue to be recruited by terrorists groups preying on the bitterness and anger many Iraqis feel towards our government. In the end, this could lead to the loss of more lives than Saddam Hussein could've ever killed.
 
Bluer White said:
I'm wondering if there's an accurate record of the number of women maimed/killed in Basra in the years before the war began. The city's population is 2.6 million. It might provide some perspective........religion-inspired violence and honor killings were not invented in the last five years. :shrug:

Women in Iraq in general were getting along pretty well under the old government. They had many more rights then they do now.
 
yolland said:
I don't think many in either party would see "how women are treated around the world" as cause for aggressive intervention (political or military) in and of itself.

I know. No one did anything at all when the Taliban was killing women. It only hit home when it literally hit home.

No, all I want is for it to be addressed in the context of the American invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq. We're there; it's happening; now what?
 
Bluer White said:
........religion-inspired violence and honor killings were not invented in the last five years. :shrug:



not in Saudi Arabia or Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, you're right.

but this is very new for the previously secular Iraq.
 
U2isthebest said:

As long as we're involved there, more people will continue to be recruited by terrorists groups preying on the bitterness and anger many Iraqis feel towards our government.

In the context of the article posted, I'd argue that the violence against women is due to their increased and changing role in society. Not bitterness toward the American government. You know.....stuff like what Iraqi women wear on the street, their interaction with men, their participation in a political process.

In this instance, violence may be increasing *because* of society becoming a little more progressive. If you're in favor of a more progressive society, and also take into account what these extremist groups are trying to do, it should make you wonder what a precipitous withdrawal would look like.
 
Bluer White said:

In this instance, violence may be increasing *because* of society becoming a little more progressive. If you're in favor of a more progressive society, and also take into account what these extremist groups are trying to do, it should make you wonder what a precipitous withdrawal would look like.


:| Really outstanding spin, but like we've said, women were much better off under the old government.

I wonder what no invasion would've looked like for the women of Iraq. :hmm:
 
Bluer White said:


In the context of the article posted, I'd argue that the violence against women is due to their increased and changing role in society. Not bitterness toward the American government. You know.....stuff like what Iraqi women wear on the street, their interaction with men, their participation in a political process.

In this instance, violence may be increasing *because* of society becoming a little more progressive. If you're in favor of a more progressive society, and also take into account what these extremist groups are trying to do, it should make you wonder what a precipitous withdrawal would look like.

I agree. I didn't mean to come off as saying that specifically the violence against women was because our involvement. I think I went too broad in my response. What I was trying to say was that one of the main reasons given as justification for our invasion of Iraq was to be "liberators" of the Iraqi people. According to our president and his administration once Hussein was out, a free democratic government would be set up and it would have civil rights for all people. In that respect, we've royally fucked up. There's no polite way of putting that. We helped Iraq create a government that can barely function, much less lead its nation. As has been stated by other posters, violence against women in the manner described in this article did not exist prior to our involvement. In short, we did not liberate a country, we drove them further into an oppressive, dangerous cycle of violence that has shifted from government-led under to Hussein, to the leading of the Iraqi people themselves. This war was a lose-lose situation from the start.
 
Last edited:
SO do you "liberals" really give a shite about women in Iraq. Is it too much to ask to have "intelligent" dialogue. I for one see nothing but glee in some of your posts, as if it gives you great joy to have something to thump on your liberal drums about.

Maybe when there is someone seeking honest dialogue posting from the left, someone on the right will respond in kind.
 
Dreadsox said:
SO do you "liberals" really give a shite about women in Iraq. Is it too much to ask to have "intelligent" dialogue. I for one see nothing but glee in some of your posts, as if it gives you great joy to have something to thump on your liberal drums about.

Maybe when there is someone seeking honest dialogue posting from the left, someone on the right will respond in kind.

Yes I do care about what's happening to these Iraqi women. I care about human rights for every person on the planet, and I plan on spending my future in a career where I can help make that happen. What I am happy about is the fact that more and more people are coming to the conclusion that our going to war was a disaster that has only led to the death and destruction of thousands of innocent lives from our troops to Iraqi civilians. I am not happy about the circumstances at all, but I am glad that the lies, paranoia, and hatred of this administration's policies are finally being exposed for the destructive forces they are.
 
Last edited:
Dreadsox said:
SO do you "liberals" really give a shite about women in Iraq. Is it too much to ask to have "intelligent" dialogue. I for one see nothing but glee in some of your posts, as if it gives you great joy to have something to thump on your liberal drums about.

Maybe when there is someone seeking honest dialogue posting from the left, someone on the right will respond in kind.



the reason i posted this is because i do give a shite about women in iraq and this article details what has happened as a result of the failure of Bush to have any sort of war plan or to foresee what is a very logical consequence of toppling a secular dictator in a country who used an iron fist to keep a lid on this cauldron of ethnic hatred. it also warns of one of the many dangers of nation building, which is that "freedom" enables religious fanatics to rise to power and to impose their draconian laws on women, gays, whomever.

as deplorable as Saddam's regime was, it is not beyond the pale to state, in terms of general security and freedom, both gays and women were better off under Saddam.

this isn't to say that life was good under Saddam. i know some try to box any sort of criticism of the invasion/occupation as support for Saddam. far from it. this is to say that the illegal invasion and piss-poor occupation of Iraq has made life for these two groups even worse than it already was.

it is also to say that people who trumpet on and on and on about the "risk" that Saddam posed to the oil fields of Saudi Arabia are so fixated on a singular issue in an extraordinarily complex region that they've failed to see the larger consequences of this action, one consequence being the rise of religious fanaticism in a country where it was previously kept in check.
 
Irvine511 said:




the reason i posted this is because i do give a shite about women in iraq and this article details what has happened as a result of the failure of Bush to have any sort of war plan or to foresee what is a very logical consequence of toppling a secular dictator in a country who used an iron fist to keep a lid on this cauldron of ethnic hatred. it also warns of one of the many dangers of nation building, which is that "freedom" enables religious fanatics to rise to power and to impose their draconian laws on women, gays, whomever.

as deplorable as Saddam's regime was, it is not beyond the pale to state, in terms of general security and freedom, both gays and women were better off under Saddam.

this isn't to say that life was good under Saddam. i know some try to box any sort of criticism of the invasion/occupation as support for Saddam. far from it. this is to say that the illegal invasion and piss-poor occupation of Iraq has made life for these two groups even worse than it already was.

it is also to say that people who trumpet on and on and on about the "risk" that Saddam posed to the oil fields of Saudi Arabia are so fixated on a singular issue in an extraordinarily complex region that they've failed to see the larger consequences of this action, one consequence being the rise of religious fanaticism in a country where it was previously kept in check.

Thanks - and for what its worth, I do not disagree with a lot of your post.

http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq Index/index20071221.pdf

This would indicate that a potential corner has turned.

I think the Iraqi people have suffered under Saddam, differently than they are suffering now. I am not sure which suffering is better than the other. Suffering is suffering. The one thing that I am holding onto is my belief that in the last year we have turned a corner in Iraq, potentially giving them a better opportunity to end suffering.
 
unfortunately, the cynic in me thinks that we've turned a lot of corners so far.

yes, the country is more secure than it was. no, there has been no political progress.

this might be the calm before the storm.

i hope not. but that's what it looks like. i don't support the continuation of pouring blood and treasure into the construction of some kind of American Empire in Mesopotamia. it will destroy us just as surely as Afghanistan destroyed the Soviet Union.

we do need to get out. smartly, sanely, effectively. but staying for another decade, or another 10 decades, is nonsense.
 
Dreadsox said:


Thanks - and for what its worth, I do not disagree with a lot of your post.

http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq Index/index20071221.pdf

This would indicate that a potential corner has turned.

I think the Iraqi people have suffered under Saddam, differently than they are suffering now. I am not sure which suffering is better than the other. Suffering is suffering. The one thing that I am holding onto is my belief that in the last year we have turned a corner in Iraq, potentially giving them a better opportunity to end suffering.

In regards to your last paragraph, I would love for that to be the case. I wish there was a way we could've helped the Iraqi people and brought them out from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein without going to war. There is nothing wrong with wanting to liberate a people from that type of situation. However, our government was hell-bent on war against Iraq from the beginning of the Bush administration. I think it would be foolish of us as intelligent citizens to think the real reason we went to Iraq was to be the great freedom givers. We went to protect our interests there and because of our president's obsession with finishing the job his father started. There is evidence that Bush wanted to invade Iraq long before the original reason of Al-Queda connections post 9-11 as referenced in this article. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

I don't have the answer as to what we could've done to help the Iraqi people, but if that was really our goal I believe the administration could've come with a diplomatic solution that would've have aided the Iraqis and kept us from starting this disaster of a war that has caused nothing but pain and suffering from all involved.
 
Last edited:
if i could be so succinct ... toppling Saddam has been around as an idea since 1998, and it was a pretty fringe idea as most thought it would create more problems than it would solve. then 9-11 happened. and certain people who had the ear of a new administration saw an opportunity, and they saw that Saddam's fabled WMDs could be spun to present a danger to the American people that could be used to rally enough political support for the invasion. and it worked.
 
Irvine511 said:
if i could be so succinct ... toppling Saddam has been around as an idea since 1998, and it was a pretty fringe idea as most thought it would create more problems than it would solve. then 9-11 happened. and certain people who had the ear of a new administration saw an opportunity, and they saw that Saddam's fabled WMDs could be spun to present a danger to the American people that could be used to rally enough political support for the invasion. and it worked.

I was aware of that, and I think it's absolutely immoral (and I know you do also, so I hope this post doesn't come off as anger directed towards you, Irvine) to use the American people's fears and confusion after 9-11 to promote a war that had more to do with their personal desire for power and control, especially over their sainted oil, than it did with any real, credible thread that Hussein posed to our country.
 
Irvine511 said:
if i could be so succinct ... toppling Saddam has been around as an idea since 1998, and it was a pretty fringe idea as most thought it would create more problems than it would solve. then 9-11 happened. and certain people who had the ear of a new administration saw an opportunity, and they saw that Saddam's fabled WMDs could be spun to present a danger to the American people that could be used to rally enough political support for the invasion. and it worked.
As an idea it was stated policy from the Iraq Liberation Act (which did not justify war to those ends). Regime change was apparently the desired end of US soft power, regime change was not sequestered away in the vault of a right-wing think tank until Bush came in. Policy does not become a blank slate as soon as some sinister neo-cons sieze control and trick the entire nation into believing Saddam had WMD, there were ten years of WMD justified sanctions, bombings and attempted coups that simply don't go away because of Bush or the war.

Do I support theofascist militiamen violently opressing women and gays? Absolutely not, but life under Saddam while relatively progressive in good times (he was only hurting enemies of the state) was ruined by the Gulf War (Iraq - Iran) and the subsequent war and sanctions. The destruction of Iraqs civil society took decades.

This little piece on Human Rights Watch on the status of women in Iraq declares that as a consequence of the pressures put on the Iraqi people and the state that many womens rights that were enshrined in the 70's and early 80's were stripped away in the 90's. Saddam was not averse to courting religious tribal leaders to stay onto power, the Koran in somebodies blood being a neat example of this. The Fedayeen Saddam going after prostitutes by murdering them would be another.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom