Hmm, this doesn't appear to be too good for the open society that the US would like to see, but it is after all, not really our call to make. They should be free to follow whoever they choose to, and if they make the decision to follow Jim Jones and drink his Kool-Aide, what can we really do? They are excercising their religious freedom. Part of Freedom is the freedom to make bad decisions.
Iraq: Shia Islamists Killing Children For "Being Gay"
<small>Western Resistance ^ | 08/05/2006</small>
<small>Posted on 08/06/2006 11:18:20 AM PDT by Republicain</small>
In May, there was an upsurge of killings of people regarded as homosexuals., carried out by Shia death squads. The Times at that time reported that the increase in hostilities against homosexuals had been a result of a statement made by Iraq's Shia Grand Ayatollah Ali Husaini Sistani (pictured), who is based in Najaf, at the Kawza seminary.
In April last year, the Ayatollah had stated on his website that homosexuals should be killed in the "worst, most severe way". His fatwa had apparently been subsequently lifted, though this did not stop the emergence of death squads. Sistani did not remove an order that lesbians should be killed thus.
Various incidents of killings of homosexuals had happened since then, involving shootings, and grenade killings, but by this spring, the Interior Ministry conceded that Iraqi security forces have been infiltrated by militia extremists.
The death squads would give names of individuals targeted for "execution" and relatives would be threatened to be killed if they did not divulge the whereabouts of their relatives. There is only a small portion of Baghdad where a "gay" culture has been tolerated in the country, but there is male prostitution, and often young boys are kidnapped and forced to work as male prostitutes. In April, a 14 year old boy was shot in the head in al-Dura, a suburb of Baghdad. His father was told he had been shot for "corrupting the community".
The current issue of the UK Observer notes that the executions of homosexuals are not only increasing, but shockingly, the militia are even executing children as young as 11.
The young boys, and older males, are kidnapped and sold on to criminal gangs who then use them as prostitutes, and the murder of these "immorals" is not regarded legally as a serious crime. Apparently section 111 of Iraq's penal code protects those who murder people who act "against Islam", allowing perpetrators of "executions" to remain unpunished.
Last month, eleven year old Ameer Hasoon al-Hasani was kidnapped by policemen from in front of his house. It was known in the neighbourhood that the child had been forced to engage in prostitution. His father searched three days for the boy, only to find his body. Ameer had been shot through the head.
Ali Hili is an Iraqi homosexual rights worker based in London, who claims he has lost contact with half of the volunteers who were based in Iraq. He says: "The government will do nothing to tackle this issue. It's really desperate when people get to the stage they're trading their children for money. They have no alternatives because there are no jobs."
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 26
Murdering children is not "making bad decisions." It's murdering children, plain and simple. Where's the outrage? And where's the U.S. Army, allowing this to happen? See, this is the hypocrisy of the whole thing: we're going to bring freedom to Iraq, except to women, except to homosexuals. Them we don't care so much about.
Either kick butts and take names or get the hell out. But in any case, if you were gay, or you had a child who was gay (as I do) I doubt very much that you'd be so philosophical about the whole thing.
If the United States were to implement colonialization of Iraq, there would probably be an uproar in the region, and Iran would probably move against us even fiercer than before. Of course, then there would be more reason for Iran to worry about trying to be the regional power. China would probably also be worried, Russia would be worried.
How would we go about recruiting for the colonial occupation force set to take control of Baghdad?
from the article:
Apparently section 111 of Iraq's penal code protects those who murder people who act "against Islam", allowing perpetrators of "executions" to remain unpunished.
It is extrajudicial execution. I believe someone has referred to "death squads" as another name for terrorists.
Magi
If we are attempting to maintain order in Iraq, if we are supporting the government in Iraq, then we need to tell them to crack down on this and cut the crap. Defending a government which allows behavior like this is immoral. This is NOT democracy. It is NOT democracy when people are killed merely for having been born gay. That is fascism. So what you are saying is that OUR children are bleeding and dying in Iraq so that they can install a fascist government to replace the OLD fascist government? Does this make any sense to you at all?
You know, I've sort of cut myself out from the flock of the good progressives that I know, at my job (I work at a college) and at my church (I'm a Unitarian) because I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and, more tentatively, the invasion of Iraq. But I did so because it just seemed to me that we can not sit idly by and allow people to be slaughtered. We SHOULD have done something about Rwanda, by the way, before you start throwing THAT chestnut at me. I just think back to WWII, how we sat by and did nothing, basically, while Hitler ran riot over Europe and exterminated 6,000,000 Jews ALONG with millions of HOMOSEXUALS and gypsies and anyone else deemed "unacceptable" by the Fatherland.
But if all we're going to do is let them continue on -- to quote Pete Townshend: "Meet the new boss/Same as the old boss," then I say to hell with it. Bring our troops back home now and let them work it out if that's what they're going to do.
sputter sputter sputter sputter sputter. I'm seeing red. As I said, I am the mother of a gay child. I take this personally. This is not theoretical for me. I bleed for these children. I will not be glib about their murder, sorry.
http://www.juancole.com/2005/08/islamic-law-primary-in-iraqi.html
(snip)
Al-Hayat: In one of the major disputes outstanding between the Kurds and the Shiites, on whether Islamic law will be the fundamental source or only one of the sources of Iraqi law, the Shiite religious parties appear to have won out. AFP reports that the reason for this is that the United States has swung around and begun to support the primacy of Islamic canon law.
Al-Hayat writes, "Also, an agreement was reached that Islam is the religion of state, and that no law shall be enacted that contradicts the agreed-upon essential verities of Islam. Likewise, the inviolability of the highest [Shiite] religious authorities in the land is safeguarded, without any allusion to a detailed description. The paragraph governing these matters will specify that Islam is 'the fundamental basis' for legislation, though there will be an allusion to the protection of democratic values, human rights, and social and national values. A Higher Council will be formed to review new legislation to ensure it does not contravene the essential verities of the Islamic religion." Personal status law, concerning marriage, divorce, alimony, inheritance, and so forth, will be adjudicated by religious courts in accordance with the religion or sect to which the individual belongs.
Similar law is present in the constitution of the US-installed "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan". In fact, the text of the Afghanistan constitution is instructive:
In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate
Preamble
We the people of Afghanistan:
1. With firm faith in God Almighty and relying on His lawful mercy, and Believing in the Sacred religion of Islam . . .
3. While acknowledging the sacrifices and the historic struggles, rightful Jehad and just resistance of all people of Afghanistan, and respecting the high position of the martyrs for the freedom of Afghanistan . . .
Chapter I The State
Article 1 [Islamic Republic]
Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.
Article 2 [Religions]
(1) The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam
(2) Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law.
Article 3 [Law and Religion]
In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam . . .
Article 131 [Shia Law for Shia Followers]
(1) Courts shall apply Shia school of law in cases dealing with personal matters involving the followers of Shia Sect in accordance with the provisions of law.
(2) In other cases if no clarification by this constitution and other laws exist and both sides of the case are followers of the Shia Sect, courts will resolve the matter according to laws of this Sect. '
[I take it that article 131 implies that ordinarily personal status law is Sunni, but Shiites will be ruled by Shiite law.] This Afghan constitution was also enacted with the help of Zalmay Khalilzad, then US ambassador in Afghanistan and now US envoy in Iraq. I'm not suggesting that Dr. Khalilzad has a soft spot for Islamic canon law. More probably he is just a pragmatist who recognizes that these provisions reflect the current mood and convictions of the majority in Afghanistan and Iraq.
(snip)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article362151.ece
6 August 2006 21:20
Iraqi police 'killed 14-year-old boy for being homosexual'
By Jerome Taylor
Published: 05 May 2006
Human rights groups have condemned the "barbaric" murder of a 14-year-old boy, who, according to witnesses, was shot on his doorstep by Iraqi police for the apparent crime of being gay.
Ahmed Khalil was shot at point-blank range after being accosted by men in police uniforms, according to his neighbours in the al-Dura area of Baghdad.
Can we force them to live in a pluralistic society? Maybe. But then we would be occupiers, and not liberators. I thought the american people did not want to occupy another country. I think Bush doesn't want to get involved in the messy mess of nation building.
It might be significantly easier to watch Iraq break up into three autonomous regions.
We've always been occupiers and we've never been liberators. Colin Powell warned Bush about Iraq when he told him about the Pottery Barn Rule: You break it, you own it.
Well Bush has broken it. He had the ill-conceived notion that he was going to build a democracy. And now he owns it. Brave Americans have been giving their lives to establish an Islamic theocracy that considers its fine to kill gay kids. That makes me sick to my stomach.
my poor 2 cents.
Matthew T
Of COURSE George Bush wants to get into the "messy business of nation building"!!!! What the hell do you think he's doing over there? If it was about the WMD's, we would have found that there were none there and gotten the hell out. If it was about Saddam, we would have caught him and gotten the hell out. We are there because BUSH WANTS TO CREATE A "DEMOCRATIC" GOVERNMENT OVER THERE!!!
Now it's true, we can't make people believe something, but we can put moral pressure on people. We have been putting pressure on the Iranian government regarding the execution of women for adultery and have managed to save three women as a result. We CERTAINLY can put pressure on the Iraqi government to do something about this if there is a will to do so, but clearly there isn't. Clearly, Bush doesn't care about a couple of gay kids getting killed.
If we can't make them be moral decent human beings, well, we can't. But we don't have to HELP them be murderers. We don't have to stand by and let OUR kids be killed trying to protect their evil ways. That's just sick and disgusting.
This is a little off topic, but I think one thing we should remember is that in our own country the burning of homosexuals only recently came to end. People would still do it if they thought they could get away with it.
How should we the outsiders make the statement that the Grand Ayatollah of Iraq is incorrect in his damning of homosexuals and decreeing that they should be killed in a most severe way? This is the local representative of Allah, directing the faithful to kill homosexuals.
It's a good thing that Salman Rushdie isn't trying to flaunt his location in Iraq. Salman Rushdie, for those of you who don't know/remember, was the author who wrote a book called SATANIC VERSES, for which Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini condemned him to die.
Oh, and Steve, your criticism is noted, I will try to rely less on quoted attributed source material in the future.
Would people have likely believed my claims that "I've read where some children in Iraq are being murdered because they are homosexuals?"
But hey, be on the lookout for more unhappy news.
I still say that we are not occupiers, we are hoping to instill a set of equal laws, but until people stop killing their countrymen, or until Iraq partitions itself away we can't really impose our sense of right and wrong upon this other religious culture.
I don't think Iran is being influenced by pressures from any part of the civilized world. After all, they are advancing thier own scintific processes and hopefully will get cascades going such that they can enrich sufficient quantities of uranium.
Hey, I also read where I believe it was Niger stopped shipment of U-238 to Iran, through Bandar Abbas, and maybe another transit point.
I really don't see why you get upset by my transplanting ideas to be used for growth medium for other discussions here at this site.
The piece in the observer was what they made available from their site to the google robot.
I do not rely on the copywrighted material to boost my gather points. Perhaps I have used material to support, or to argue against a position, but material is out there and readily available.
Glen D. wanted another piece. The western resistance site where the first piece was from looked a bit too focused. I provided what google made freely available. ... No, I provided what the Independant made freely available. As evidence that multiple sources have reported on this atrocity.
It is wrong of us to ignore the 8th century warriors, because they are learning to make use of tools and weapons, and they some day not too far off in the distance will master the cascade process for enriching Uranium.
As long as their central belief structure is a guide to war, they likely won't change.