Who Hates Our Freedom?

Musharraf's Pakistan apparently:

For the vast majority of humans, terror comes in more mundane ways - like the violent hands that woke Dr. Shazia Khalid as she lay sleeping in her bed, and the abuse she's suffered at the hands of Mr. Musharraf's government ever since.

. . . Her tale is simultaneously an indictment of General Musharraf's duplicity, a window into the debasement that is the lot of women in much of the world - and a modern love story. Dr. Shazia, now 32, took a job by herself two years ago as a doctor at a Pakistan Petroleum plant in the wild Pakistani region of Baluchistan, after Pakistan Petroleum also promised a job for her husband there (that job never materialized). Dr. Shazia's family worried about her safety, but her residence was in a guarded compound and she felt strongly that the women in that region needed access to a female physician.

Then on Jan. 2, Dr. Shazia woke up in the middle of the night, and at first she thought she was having a nightmare. "But this person was really pulling hard on my hair, and then he started pressing on my throat so I couldn't breathe. ... He tied the telephone cord around my throat. I resisted and struggled, and he beat me on the head with the telephone receiver... [H]e took my prayer scarf and he blindfolded me with it, and he took the telephone cord and tied my wrists, and he laid me down on the bed. I tried hard to fight but he raped me."

. . . A 35-page confidential report by a tribunal describes Dr. Shazia tumbling into the nurse's quarters that morning: "semiconscious ... with a swelling on her forehead and bleeding from nose and ear." Officials of Pakistan Petroleum rushed over and took decisive action. "They told me to be quiet and not to tell anybody because it would ruin my reputation," Dr. Shazia remembers. One official warned that if she reported the crime, she could be arrested.

That was a genuine risk. Under Pakistan's hudood laws, a woman who reports that she has been raped is liable to be arrested for adultery or fornication - since she admits to sex outside of marriage - unless she can provide four male eyewitnesses to the rape. Dr. Shazia wasn't sure she dared to report the crime, but she begged for permission to contact her family. So, she says, officials drugged her into a stupor and then confined her in a psychiatric hospital in Karachi.

. . . "When I treat rape victims, I tell the girls not to go to the police," Dr. Shershah Syed, a prominent gynecologist in Karachi, told me. "Because if she goes to the police, the police will rape her."

That's the way the world works for anyone unfortunate enough to be born female in much of the world.

The cynical Bush claim to be working for "freedom"  is an offensive and detestable lie. Pakistan, the "new" Iraq, Uzbekistan. The truth has never mattered to Bush. And neither, apparently, do the rights and well being of women.  

•  Disgusting

  Politically useful allies, of course, don't get the same kind of scrutiny our enemies do.  Nothing new under the sun here.

  by Linnaeus on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 05:06:46 PM PDT

•  Realpolitik

  Thursday's L.A. Times had a very good investigative piece on how Pakistan and the Pakistani military are supporting Afghani Taliban and other allied warlords like the ones who took out the SEAL platoon and another rescue team there in the mountains several weeks ago.  I don't have the time to dig up the link but it is damning.  When we overran the abandoned guerilla camp in question, we found Pepsi cans and discarded running shoes, among other things, suggesting a very sophisticated and coordinated supply chain.  It was hard to read this article and not wonder whether Pervez Musharraf has bin Laden staying in his guest room with an X-Box, a flatscreen, and a harem.

  And the question that's been sticking in my mind ever since reading the article is, "Pakistan is our ally in the Woron Terra how, exactly???

  by The Termite on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 05:10:15 PM PDT

•  It was

  about oil. Oh and getting the guy who tried to kill his daddy.

  by ljm on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 05:11:33 PM PDT

•  Iraq will soon follow

  and do as bad if not worse to women in Iraq.  We are in bed with these people, the Saudi's, the Pakistanies, and about every single government that harms women in this world.

  Women are losing more rights everyday in the Middle East BECAUSE of what Bush has done.  Granted, Afghanistan is better, but in the countryside things aren't all that great for women.  Defining "better" means that women can at least see Dr.s and work outside the home, but few other "rights" have been given back to them.

  Maybe I take this "personally" as I am a woman, and just can't imagine the horror of living through a rape and the treatment Dr. Khalid experienced after.

  This problem is not just about laws, it is about a social structure that is tolerated, and the only way to start to correct these abuses of women is to start with laws, but these laws won't get made or passed.

  I diaried a bit ago about the plight of women in Iraq, rather the "Islamic state of Iraq" as it wants to be known as, the women in Iraq aren't "winners" of freedom, they have lost rights, lost their ability to live as they want, they are to suffer at the hands of Bush.

  Sorry to rant so long, but I can't even get the words out quick enough to get across how angry and upset I am right now.  

  by SanJoseLady on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 05:11:40 PM PDT

  •  Iraq Already followed it

    Daily Kos: 50 million "liberated" for prostitution, rape, beatings and defecating on themselves

    Iraq: Freedom" to sell your teenage daughters
    Salon has this sad article today:
    Unveiling Iraq's teenage prostitutes
    Fleeing their war-torn homes, Iraqi girls are selling their bodies in Syria to support their families.

    ...the emergence of Iraqi prostitution in Syria, especially among young girls, reflects the dire conditions of the local Iraqi refugee community..

    Iraq: "Freedom" to be attacked, raped and sold as sex slaves
    Violence against women increases sharply - Amnesty International

    Violence against women and girls has sharply increased in Iraq compared to the time before last year's war. After the war, there was a complete breakdown of law and order. Even though the situation has generally improved since those first months, the lack of security still remains a serious threat to the population. Many women and girls live under constant fear of being harassed, beaten, abducted, raped or murdered

    by lawnorder on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 07:38:19 PM PDT

  •  Rape... Rather long rant...

    [snip] Maybe I take this "personally" as I am a woman, and just can't imagine the horror of living through a rape and the treatment Dr. Khalid experienced after... [snip]

    I'm like you. I too take it 'personally' because I am a woman. But I also take it personally because I am a 'survivor' of rape. Believe me, it isn't much better here (in America). My experience was similar to, yet different from, Dr. Khalid's.

    NOTE: Do not read the next 3 para's if you are squeamish.

    I was beaten unconscious, then raped & sodomized -- but outside of my home, and like Dr. Khalid, I fought like hell, which is probably why I was beaten unconscious. The ER doctor wrote a 4-page, single-spaced documentation of my injuries, and then I (with said documentation) went to the police; unlike Dr Khalid, who wasn't even allowed to do that. That, in fact, is almost more horrendous than the rape itself, since she doesn't even have any hope of redress for the crimes committed against her; so in effect, she was raped twice (three times, if you include the involuntary confinement in the mental ward). As an aside, I have kidney damage, minor brain damage (does not effect intelligence, but does give me chronic migraines), and other internal organ damage, to this day, from injuries sustained during the attack. I can imagine the damage Dr Khalid sustained, and it's not a pretty picture.

    OK, so now we're at the police station. That was where I found out that, #1: the man who raped me was a serial rapist (the police told me this was the MO of a known serial in the area), #2: I "wasn't really raped, I just got a bit shook up in some kinky S&M" (again, the police told me this), #3: was asked if I wanted to play more games and other suggestive comments (they make me vomit, to this day, so I shan't repeat them here), and #4: they wouldn't press charges because I knew the man (he was a DJ on a local jazz station and a student at the college I attended). I knew him by sight, but that was all; we had no interaction at all until he raped me, and I don't consider that to be true interaction, even if the police do. BTW, to date, that man has not been brought to trial, or even charged; and I am dead-sure I wasn't his last victim.

    Even the ER doctor (he took me to the cop shop) tried to get charges pressed. He too was unsuccessful; and later told me I was victim #7, that he knew of; even after he vouched for my character. In the first place, why is that even necessary, anyways!? Do victims of robbery have to have their characters vouched for?

    So, basically, women get treated pretty much the same all over the world (at least, the parts of the world where we are 'allies'), when it comes to rape, (and other gender-based crimes). Too many men, and, sadly, some women, still don't get that this is a crime of violence, not a sex act.

    Unfortunately, one of those men is in charge (I use the term loosely) of this country, and another is in charge of Pakistan. When will they, and others, learn that rape is never a consensual act (whether the victim is female or male), nor do the victims "ask for it," nor do we 'like it but just don't want to admit it,' nor do we "get over it quickly" (in many cases, never). And all of this is true of the detainees at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, et al, too.  

    Do you know that, in many states, it is still not possible to charge a man for raping his wife? And that the reason is because he owns her body and can do with it what he wills (this is not me ranting, it is state law). It is slowly changing, but I wonder if anything will ever really change, at least, in my lifetime.

    In the meantime, I am praying for Dr Khalid (and her countrywomen), with all of my heart and soul. I hope to God that she survives this.

    I also apologize for the long rant, but it is necessary to get the word out, that women are being subjugated, hurt, and killed all over the world, for no other reason than that they are women. That has to stop. Right now, even.

    ~~ End of rant...

    by rev denise michel on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 08:45:54 AM PDT

    •  Thank you for sharing your story

      It must be unbelievably difficult to tell your about it, violent and horrible as it is. I am really aghast, but not surprised, at the behavior of the police.

      It's beyond obvious that our society is NOT equal. Men are in charge, and whatever liberties women have, we've had to fight tooth and nail for. Men have never granted us rights out of the kindness of their souls.

      I am so sorry you had to endure such terrible ordeal. I'm sure traumas like these don't ever go away for most people.

      This is not an anti-male rant, by the way. Personally, every male friend I have, and most men I know are stellar people who would be just as horrified by your story as I am. Unfortunately, it seems more and more obvious that they are not the majority.

      Lack of education, ignorance and fear foster hate. And as long as we keep putting the victims on trial, less rapes will be reported, and less will be done about them.

      By the way, one of my favorite movies recently was the Florence Holloway story. Called "Rape In A Small Town," the documentary is about a 75-year-old woman who is raped and her subsequent fight to get the rapist convicted. It should NEVER be this difficult. I can't recommend this movie enough. Shows exactly how our society views women.

      Rape In A Small Town

      by flashlass on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 11:03:04 AM PDT

      •  Reply to Flashlass...

        [snip] I am so sorry you had to endure such terrible ordeal. I'm sure traumas like these don't ever go away for most people.

        This is not an anti-male rant, by the way. Personally, every male friend I have, and most men I know are stellar people who would be just as horrified by your story as I am. Unfortunately, it seems more and more obvious that they are not the majority. [snip]

        Flashlass, thank you for your caring. It helps a lot, when I do tell my experience, to see that it is not belittled or trivialized.

        My DH (who is a male {he wept for hours when I told him what happened, then he apologized, as if it was his fault!}) believes that rapists should be castrated, not chemically, but physically. As he says, "if you don't know how to use it, you should lose it." And he agrees with you, that men like your friends (and himself) are not the majority, and he thinks that is as much a crime as rape itself.  

        I have learned to live with what happened, but I must admit that it radically changed the fundamental 'me,' if you know what I mean. As an aside, DH will not allow "Sleeping with the Enemy" to be shown in the Casa (reference to what our place is called on Cheers & Jeers) because he is afraid it will cause a flashback. But I am going to try and watch the Florence Holloway story. It'd be nice to see that someone got justice, no matter how long it takes.

        Again, thanks {hugs}...

        by rev denise michel on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 12:32:10 PM PDT

        •  bless you

          Sending my prayers for your continued healing.

          by chumley on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 03:42:21 PM PDT

        •  I think the movie is empowering...

          But I also have not experienced what you have! From my perspective, the Francis Holloway story is a must-see for victims of rape. Maybe it would be too much for some, but I can tell by how strong you sound that you will most likely find it empowering and wonderful as well. Probably much more than I did.

          It's even more astounding that Francis was quite old when it happened to her. I don't know where she gets her strength, but she is the biggest heroine around, in my book.

          Thank you for your kind follow-up. I'm glad you have such supportive people around you, and I'm sure it's because you deserve it!

          :)

          by flashlass on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 03:56:04 PM PDT

•  Pakistan: Failed State

  With vast reaches of the nation not under governmental control, it's getting more and more like a semi-industrialized Afghanistan with a nuclear bomb.

  by DHinMI on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 05:16:55 PM PDT

  •  In a brand new Congressional Research ...

    Service report just out this week - "Pakistan-U.S. Relations" by K. Alan Kronstadt - points out that:

    Pakistan is among the world's leading recipients of U.S. aid. Including current appropriations and requests, Pakistan will receive about $3.4 billion in direct U.S. assistance for FY2002-FY2006. Almost half of this ($1.5 billion) is security-related aid. ...

    Some excerpts:

    Since mid-2003, major U.S. militaryg rants and proposed sales to Pakistan have included six C-130 military transport aircraft ($75 million grant); six Aerostat surveillance radars ($155 million sale); 12 radars and 40 Bell transport helicopters ($300 million sale); military radio systems ($78 million sale); a November 2004 proposed sale of eight P-3C aircraft, six Phalanx guns, and 2,000 TOW missiles (worth up to $1.2 billion); and, in May 2005, the proposed sale of 300 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and 60 Harpoon anti-ship missiles (worth $226 million). The Pentagon reports Foreign Military Sales agreements with Pakistan worth $27 million in FY2002, $167 million in FY2003, and $176 million in FY2004.

    The United States has undertaken to train and equip new Pakistan Army Air Assault units that can move quickly to find and target terrorist elements. There has been a direct U.S. role in training the security detail of the Pakistani president, help to fund a 650-officer Diplomatic Security Unit, and assistance with numerous programs designed to improve the quality of Pakistan's internal police forces through the provision of equipment and training. Islamabad continues to seek increased arms imports, especially in an effort to bolster its air forces. ...

    Human Rights Problems. The U.S. State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2004 determined that the Pakistani government's record on human rights again "remained poor; although there were some improvements in a few areas, serious problems remained." Along with concerns about anti-democratic practices, the report lists "severe" corruption, extrajudicial killings, lack of judicial independence, political violence, terrorism, and "extremely poor" prison conditions among the serious problems. Police have abused and raped citizens with apparent impunity. Improvement in a few areas was noted, IB94041 07-26-05 however, particularly with press freedoms and the punishment of some security officials who were found guilty of abuses. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have issued reports critical of Pakistan's lack of political freedoms and of the country's perceived abuses of the rights of women and minorities. Discrimination against women is widespread, and traditional constraints -- cultural, legal, and spousal -- have kept women in a subordinate position in society. "Honor killings" continue to occur throughout the country. The adult literacy rate for men in Pakistan is 60%, while only one-third of women can read and write. The State Department's International Religious Freedom Report 2004 has singled out Pakistan for "state hostility toward minority or non-approved religions" for six consecutive years, indicating that the Pakistani government continued to impose limits on freedom of religion, to fail in many respects to protect the rights of religious minorities, and to fail at times to intervene in cases of sectarian violence. A 2005 report from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom claimed that, "The response of the government of Pakistan to persistent and religiously motivated violence in Pakistan continues to be inadequate" and again
    recommended that Pakistan be designated a Country of Particular Concern. In June 2005, a State Department report on trafficking in persons said that "Pakistan does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking; however, it is making significant efforts to do so," and it removed Pakistan from the "Tier 2Watch List."

    by Meteor Blades on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 06:09:25 PM PDT

    •  And That Doesn't Even Mention...

      ...that the so-called "tribal areas" are beyond the control of the government, and is almost certainly where Osama Bin Forgotten is safely ensconced.  

      Also interesting that so much of the training appears oriented toward protecting the national leadership from internal threats.  

      by DHinMI on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 06:14:59 PM PDT

•  We need to be screaming about this

  The Muslim treatment of women is reprehensible.
  The new Iraqi government is apparently headed in the same direction. The wingnuts here are trying to turn back the time on Women's rights.
  Time for women to rise up and scream about this.

  by linnie on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 05:21:12 PM PDT

  •  You are wrong about Muslim treatment of women

    The Muslim treatment of women is reprehensible.

    Statements like ths are inaccurate and dangerous.  I am engaged to a Muslim and have never been treated with the respect and honor my fiance gives me and our relationship.  His family, including his father and his brothers, treat me the same.  

    We need to think before we make blanket statements like yours.  I'm not sure if you mean what you have written here.  If you don't then please don't make such sweeping generalizzations and if you do mean it, you are utterly and totally wrong.

    by caliberal on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 05:35:41 PM PDT

    •  Sorry, i overreacted to this very sad story

      I did not mean to offend.  I guess I really meant that the Fundamentalist Muslims and Fundamentalist Christians as well are trying to put women under the thumb of men, and sending us back in time in our rights.  I have heard many stories of late that the women in Iraq are not going to have the rights they thought they would have and the women in Afghanistan as well. Now it appears that Pakistan is the same.  

      by linnie on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 05:54:24 PM PDT

      •  No offense taken

        I had a feeling you were caught up in the emotional turmoil we as women experience when we read what is happening to women all over the world.   Absolutely no offense taken.   There are so many hate crimes in this country I'm sensitive to Muslims being at the other end of that hate.  

        You are so right about the women and the rights that have been taken from us all.  It's heartbreaking to read it everyday.  It's also surreal to think that it's as bad now as it has been for hundreds of years.   In so many countries, including our own, women don't have equality.  It's degrading to women and to men.  

        by caliberal on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 06:03:55 PM PDT

    •  Muslim treatment of women...

      [snip] The Muslim treatment of women is reprehensible. [snip]

      It's not the Muslim treatment of women. The Koran specifically prohibits this mistreatment, and requires that a woman be allowed to keep her dowery (in case her husband dies and she is left to care for the family); requires that women be treated with respect; and several other rights that I can't remember right now.

      The fundamentalist faction of Islam ignores these mandates from the Koran, because it offends them that women should be treated like humans, and for no other reason. They are exactly like the 'religious right' in this country, who want to strip women of their God-given rights and return us to the status of chattel.

      I can almost guarantee that God (Allah) cries every time a woman is mistreated in His name, because He created her, the same as He created men. I am also pretty sure that there are times when God (or whatever name you want to use) regrets promising not to flood the world again (promise made to Noah in the Hebrew Testament), because there are times when flooding it and starting over with people who make sense must seem like a totally awesome idea to Him.

      JM5CW....

      
      

      by rev denise michel on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 09:04:31 AM PDT

  •  Not "Muslim Treatment of Women"

    Considering that Pakistan, Indonesia and Bangladesh have all had women Presidents and we haven't, we might want to be a little more careful about the phrases we throw around.  

    Much of these problems are cultural and tribal more than Muslim.  You tend not to have these kinds of problems in Sarajevo, Istanbul, Jakarta, Dhakka or many other predominately Muslim places.  There are certainly major, major problems in plenty of places with Muslim majorities, and Islam is certainly invoked to justify the oppression.  But when you refer to it as "Muslim treatment of women" you're trading in gross generalizations.  

    Furthermore, I could tell you about some Christian women I've known from Balkan and Arabic backgrounds whose cultures aren't a whole lot better than what's described in this article.

    by DHinMI on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 05:36:24 PM PDT

    •  Fundamentalist Treatment of Women

      Fundamentalists of all ilk tend to treat the women and girls in relationship with them badly.

      I find it so sad that some men may be so filled with self-loathing and fear that they mistreat the females around them who could nuture and love them.

      by Patricia Taylor on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 05:45:29 PM PDT

      •  Fundamentalism is the problem

          It's probably a bit too pat and facile to express it this way, but it's probably not far from the truth -- the lines of battle in the world are drawn between fundamentalism (Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, free-market, Marxist, you name it) and reason.

          Fundamentalism of any stripe is toxic to humanity.

         

        by Buzzer on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 06:06:43 PM PDT

        •  Sure, But In Regards to Treatment of Women...

          ...a lot of these patterns of behavior pre-date the adoption of the current religion.  That's why I said above that it's usually cultural and tribal more than religious.  Take female genital mutilation; it's more often inflicted on Muslim women, but in Africa there are also Christian and Anamist cultures that do it.  Since most of those cultures haven't been Islamic for (historically speaking) all that long--maybe 400-600 years--and have been Christian for much less time--usually less than a couple hundred years--it seems apparent that the practice was a cultural practice long before being associated with the religious practices currently in use.  

          by DHinMI on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 06:20:52 PM PDT

          •  I Agree,,,

            ...except that there's a lot of politics involved as well. Mary Magdalene was cast off and called a whore because she got in the way of men veing for power. Now we have a Christian church led by men. The Mormons treat their women like second class citizens because the men don't want competition. Same with fundamentalist Jews. It's a short hop from there to men feeling empowered to abuse women. It's not an Islamic religious problem. It's a political problem within religion. The only difference is that women in America, Israel, and Europe have rights which women in Africa and the Middle East don't have. But that doesn't stop women in America, Europe, and Israel from being brutalized as cited in Mando's story.

            Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, Mohammed, did not preach treating women as inferiors. It was the men who took over their movements after they died, who twisted their message for their own political convenience -- power.

            by chuco35 on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 07:07:25 PM PDT

            •  Mary Magdalene...

              [snip] Mary Magdalene was cast off and called a whore because she got in the way of men veing for power. [snip]

              Imagine the frothing at the mouth when some people say that Mary M was actually Jesus' wife. That is one of the topics covered in  "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, & Henry Lincoln. It is one of the many interesting conclusions that are reached in this book.

              Check it out. The link is an Amazon link (sorry), but it does have reviews of the book, etc.

              by rev denise michel on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 02:16:59 PM PDT

              •  Indeed...

                I find it interesting that it was only Mother Mary, Mary M., and St James, the youngest apostle, who had the guts to pull Jesus down from the cross, prepare his body, and bury him in the midst of the hatred raining down on Jesus' adherants at the time. All the other apostles were running scared, afraid that they would suffer the same fate. I would expect that it would be Jesus' mother and wife (beloved mistress?), who would do this in the face of all the danger. That's also why John the younger is my favorite apostle -- he never wavered one bit.

                by chuco35 on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 12:19:49 AM PDT

        •  Yes, but it's not versus "reason,"

          methinks. Fundamentalism plays plenty of havoc, right there.

          Talk about your murderous extremes.

          But anytime we speak of reason, please let's don't forget about rhyme.

          Rhythm, percussion, and harmony, too. And always, the providence of improvisation.

          by musing graze on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 08:25:57 PM PDT

    •  Exactly. n/t

      by Meteor Blades on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 06:11:43 PM PDT

    •  Muslim women presidents...

      Considering that Pakistan, Indonesia and Bangladesh have all had women Presidents

      Benazir Bhutto became president because she was Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's daughter. Zulfikar was the former PM of Pakistan and when he was hanged by Zia, she took over the leadership of the People's Party of Pakistan.

      Sukarnoputri was the daughter of the first president Sukarno of Indonesia.

      The two women PMs of Bangladesh were the daughter of the first PM Sheik Mujib and the wife of the first military dicator, both of who died before their terms were over.

      Even in India, Mrs. Indira Gandhi became the head of the party and government because she was the daughter of the first PM Nehru.

      Similar story for the PM of Sri Lanka.

      The two well known PMs who got their position w/o the help of family connections were Golda Meir of Israel and Maggie Thatcher of Britain. There are other women Heads of Government that are less well known, who may have ascended w/o family connections also (Ireland, Iceland?).

      by Suvro on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 06:16:43 PM PDT

      •  Sure, But What's the Point?

        They've at least trusted the women to lead their countries.  We haven't had but a couple women even run for a major party presidential nomination.  

        And the same ascendency to power hasn't happened in plenty of other Islamic countries of a different ethnic makeup, such as Arab or Persian.  

        As far as women presidents/PM's in general, you forgot the two Filipino women as well.  Sure, Acquino was initially famous because of her husband, but she ascended to power on popular support.  

        And there's a good chance that Germany will have a woman PM soon unless Schroder pulls off a pretty big upset.  

        OH, Cilar of Turkey!  Another Muslim country with a female head of state.

        Shit, just about every major Muslim country that's not Arabic or Persian has had a female head of state.

        by DHinMI on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 06:28:22 PM PDT

        •  Moroccan women have something US women do not

          Women in Morocco have something women have been fighting for for over 250 years in the US.  They have equality in their Constitution.

          In 1886 a new constitution was written.   Article 8 - Men and women shall enjoy equal political rights.  Any citizen of age enjoying his or her civil and political rights shall be eligible to vote.  Article 5 - All Moroccan citizens shall be equal before the law.

          Moroccan women can do something American women cannot, they can look in their Constitution and see, in black and white, they have equality.  

          Since women and children are 67% of the population this is not a small thing to these women.  

          I'm not sure why it is that men in America, in the country that prides itself on democracy and freedom, in a nation that says liberty and justice for all, women have to fight to retain rights they already have and are denied rights of equality they should have.  Men are born equals, women are born without equality.  That is not the case in Morocco.  

           

          by caliberal on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 08:57:05 PM PDT

      •  no connection between women's rights and leaders

        I agree there is no connection between women's rights and women becoming heads of states. All these conntries follow a very patriarchal system of governance and if a woman falls into the shoes of a leader, so be it, she is bestowed that honor.

        I can only speak about Pakistan, and in Pakistan Benazir did very little for women's rights. But there are many courageous women who have, human rights attorney Asma Jehangir (please google to learn more about her) is a strong voice and thousands of women join forces with her at rallys and to speak up in cases such as Mukhtar Mai and Dr. Shazia.

        It is men like Musharraf who see this as a threat and order police to baton charge these peaceful rallies.
        

        by zhivago on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 09:45:33 AM PDT

    •  PC crap

      Pakistan, Indonesia and Bangladesh have all had women Presidents and we haven't, we might want to be a little more careful about the phrases we throw around.

      I'm sure I've heard a more fatuous statement than this in my time, but I just can't remember when.  

      Honestly, do you really think the fact that these countries installed either the daughters or widows of ex-dictators as president absolves them of the absolutely appalling way in which they treat ordinary women?

      And why the reluctance to shine the spotlight on Islamic treatment of women?  The fact is that around the world, regardless of culture, the more Islam influences peoples lives and laws, the worse off women are.  From the repulsive Shari'a laws restricting women's rights in property, inheritance, divorce etc. to the customs in some places prescribing gang rape, genital mutilation and total sexual segregation, Islam is an absolute horror for women.  There is absolutely nothing that a progressive should find defensible there.

      For a clear view of this, one need only look at Iraq, where the insistence on a more "Islamic" constitution has meant a total regression in terms of women's rights.  And it's the same in the West, where Muslim communities preaching a return to tradition and Shari'a inevitably harp first and foremost on the status of women.

      Sure you can find traditionalist Christian communities where the status of women ain't so great either (and don't get me started on Orthodox Jews), the fact is that neither Christianity nor Judaism contains the comprehensive and substantial theological underpinning for oppression of women that Islam does.  Islam enshrines the inferiority of women as part of its basic law.  Furthermore, the inferior status of women in these Christian or Jewish communities does not lead in most cases to the outright abuse and degradation of women that one sees ROUTINELY in the Muslim world.  Or among Muslim communities in the West.  How many times have we heard about some teenage girl getting strangled by her father or brothers in the West because she batted an eyelash at someone or wore sexy clothes?

      I'm sorry if this comes across as hatred of Muslims.  I do not hate Muslims and do my best not to be prejudiced.  But I have travelled extensively in the Muslim world and, like many people, I have been more aware of Islam since 9/11.  I will never forget the trip I took from China overland into Pakistan ten years ago.  As soon as you come to the first village on the Pakistan side of the border, you notice something strange that you cannot immediately put your finger on.  Then suddenly it strikes you:  there's not a single woman anywhere to be seen.  They're all inside.  They literally never come out of the house.  In three weeks travelling around the rural north of Pakistan, the number of native women I saw could be counted on the fingers of one hand.  Experiences like that, plus the litany of stories one hears has made me perhaps more critical of Islam than most.  While our policies need a lot of work, let's not lose perspective and start apologizing for a culture that no liberal in his right mind could defend.

      OK, rant finished.

      by BradtheDad on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 08:19:02 PM PDT

      •  Don't Waste Straw

        People need it to build bricks.

        <blockqoute>Honestly, do you really think the fact that these countries installed either the daughters or widows of ex-dictators as president absolves them of the absolutely appalling way in which they treat ordinary women?</blockquote?</p>

        What makes you think I said that, because I sure didn't write it?

        Or are you just constructed a strawman so you can knock it down?

        And I have looked at Iraq, because here in the Detroit area we have probably close to a quarter million Chaldeans--Roman Catholics who speak Arabic and/or Aramaic--and the shit I've heard from some of them is about the same as I've heard here about Muslims.  

        As for how many times we've heard about some girl getting strangled here for batting an eye at a guy, I can think of one.  And that should be significant, because I live amid what's probably the largest Muslim community--SE Michigan--in North America.  Several hundred thousand Arab Muslims, mostly Shiite Lebanese and Iraqis and Sunni Yemini and Palestinians, and I can think of one.  Which is a hell of a lot fewer cases I can recall than those of some asshole non-Muslim caught screwing his daughter or beating the hell out of her because she had a boyfriend he didn't like.  

        But you probably just think that's PC crap too.  

        Finally, you seem to exemplify exactly the thing I was urging people to avoid: cultural arrogance.  If you think I was apologizing for "a culture"--which culture, Indonesian?  Bosnian European?  Nigerian?  Saudi?  Berber?  Uzbek?--you obviously missed the point, because my point was that we can and should criticize things like what's pointed out in the Kristof article quoted for this post, but let's not get out of control in claiming such great virtue for ourselves.  

        by DHinMI on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 08:48:39 PM PDT

        •  Still dishonest

          What makes you think I said that, because I sure didn't write it?

          No, you didn't explicitly say that we should absolve the Muslim world.  What you did say is who are we talk about women's rights when these countries have all installed women heads of state and we haven't.  I'm sorry, but that sounds an awful like making excuses for these countries.  And I'm trying to say that who they've had as president tells you nothing at all about what these countries are like as societies.

          As for how many times we've heard about some girl getting strangled here for batting an eye at a guy, I can think of one.  And that should be significant, because I live amid what's probably the largest Muslim community--SE Michigan--in North America.  Several hundred thousand Arab Muslims, mostly Shiite Lebanese and Iraqis and Sunni Yemini and Palestinians, and I can think of one.

          Then you just aren't paying attention.  Honor killings of Muslim women by family members have happened (just recalling off the top of my head)in the US, Britain, France, the Netherlands, Sweden.  From Wikipedia:

          As of 2004, honor killings have occurred in numerous countries, including: Bangladesh, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, Germany, India, Iran, Iraq, Italy[3], Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Palestine, Sweden, Turkey, Uganda and the United Kingdom. In Europe, honor killings have been reported within the Muslim and Sikh communities. Many cases of honor killing have been reported in Pakistan, where it is known as KaroKari; it is also reported among Sikhs in the adjacent Indian Punjab[4].

          Aside from the Sikhs, what do all these countries have in common?  They are either Muslim or the killings have happened within the Muslim communities.

          Which is a hell of a lot fewer cases I can recall than those of some asshole non-Muslim caught screwing his daughter or beating the hell out of her because she had a boyfriend he didn't like.

          But you probably just think that's PC crap too.

          You're right, I do that's PC crap.  First of all, are you really trying to say that there are cases of a father committing incest because he didn't like his daughter's boyfriend?  Sounds pretty far-fetched.  Whereas honor killings in Muslim communities are common enough to merit their own encyclopedia entry.

          So stop making excuses.

          Finally, you seem to exemplify exactly the thing I was urging people to avoid: cultural arrogance.  If you think I was apologizing for "a culture"--which culture, Indonesian?  Bosnian European?  Nigerian?  Saudi?  Berber?  Uzbek?--you obviously missed the point, because my point was that we can and should criticize things like what's pointed out in the Kristof article quoted for this post, but let's not get out of control in claiming such great virtue for ourselves.

          My point is that poor treatment of women is common to all societies, regardless of cultural differences, that are heavily influenced by Islam.  By contrast, the societies of the West, while by no means perfect, have made great strides in enshrining equality for women as a matter of both law and custom.  Are there still crimes against women like rape?  Sure.  But ask yourself which societies takes rape seriously as a crime and which ones place every conceivable obstacle in the way of a woman who has been raped, such as needing four male witnesses etc.

          It is not "claiming great virtue" for ourselves to point out the backwardness, criminality and yes inferiority of the Muslim world on this issue.

          by BradtheDad on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 05:42:21 AM PDT

          •  Hmmm

            What you did say is who are we talk about women's rights when these countries have all installed women heads of state and we haven't.

            And you're one to lecture me about dishonesty.

            Or maybe you're just too stupid to read properly.

            I'll let others decide.

            by DHinMI on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 05:47:14 AM PDT

          •  Laws concerning rape...

            [snip] Are there still crimes against women like rape?  Sure.  But ask yourself which societies takes rape seriously as a crime and which ones place every conceivable obstacle in the way of a woman who has been raped, such as needing four male witnesses etc. [snip]

            OK, so US law may not require four male witnesses to rape. But they sure do put the victim on trial (like examining her prior sex life, if any, under a microscope, and using that as justification for her 'getting what she deserved'), and then allowing her attacker to go free (assuming he was brought to trial in the first place, which happens in less than 10% of reported cases). US law makes it easier to convict someone on Grand Theft Auto, or even possession of less than one ounce of marijuana, than on First Degree Sexual Conduct (fancy name for rape).

            The US does not take rape more seriously than other countries. If we did, we wouldn't have so many rapists walking free while their victims struggle to regain what can never be regained.

            As my Grandpa said, "the more things change, the more they stay the same." And trust me, if the Theocons get their way in the US, we will have our own verison of Shari'a Law. And it will be just as repressive, if not more, as the Muslim verison.

            
            

            by rev denise michel on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 01:47:28 PM PDT

      •  Religion and abuse of women...

        [snip]  the fact is that neither Christianity nor Judaism contains the comprehensive and substantial theological underpinning for oppression of women that Islam does. [snip]

        (My Grandpa will surely whap me upside the head with his Cosmic Baseball Bat for this, but I have to quote Scripture to refute your statement.)

        Um, excuse me, but in the English translation of the Christian Testament, we find these statements:

        1 Peter 3:7 (New International Version)
           Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.{emphasis mine}

        and

        Ephesians 5:22 (New International Version)
            Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. {emphasis mine}

        Equal people to do not have to submit, nor are they called 'the weaker partner.'

        There is one other passage that I can sort of recall, but can't quickly find, that says women must be silent in church (althought the original language {Ancient Aramaic} version makes the distinction that the women in question were outsiders {not just that they were women) who were endangering the others because their loud voices would lead the Roman soldiers to the secret place where the Christians were meeting, and then there'd be h*ll to pay, since Christianity was forbidden at that time), which is used to justify doing things like preventing them from being priests, all the way to not allowing them to speak at all in church. But I digress.

        I am not going to speak regarding the Jewish texts, because I am not experienced enough to do so with any authority on them.

        Regardless, almost every religion extant in the world today has some holy text that are used to 'justify' abusive treatment of women. This is regardless of the fact that most of them also say that God (or whatever name is used) made all people. If this is true, then all people should be treated equally.

        So, either men must start being abused the way women are, or women must start being treated as equals. No middle ground, period. But I, for one, prefer that women stop being abused. I don't hate men enough to want them to go through what the averge woman goes through every day of her life, regardless of where she lives.

        by rev denise michel on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 09:47:23 AM PDT

      •  Did you go to the city?

        I am wondering if you actually travelled through Pakistan and met anyone in the city, did you see women driving, working, walking around. If you had gone to the city,you must have.

        I agree there is a a double standard in the way women are treated by fundamentalists but alot of this is also because of poverty and the lack of economic independence of women. Things are changing and infrastrcutre for change exists. US insistence upon keeping Musharraf and letting him supress democracy is not helping.

        Islam is not a single monolithic entity, you need to learn more about the cultures where it exists. There are lots of problems with it, but understand it within the economic context, see how it can be changed before you write it off. A lot of people are too eager to not think things through, you seem to be one of them. No one should be defending what is wrong in Islam, but no one should be under any delusion that all religions are inherrently like this, and that only forces of secularism and economic and social mobility can convert that way of life. It happened in christianity, it can happen in Islam.
        

        by zhivago on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 09:55:02 AM PDT

      •  Islamic influences...

        [snip] And why the reluctance to shine the spotlight on Islamic treatment of women?  The fact is that around the world, regardless of culture, the more Islam influences peoples lives and laws, the worse off women are.  [snip]

        So what is the excuse for the US, where a man who steals a car gets more prison time than a man who rapes a woman (or even 100)?  

        What is the excuse for the US, where women finally got privacy rights (Roe v Wade), and have had to fight non-stop since then to keep them? And are now in danger of losing them, and many more rights as well.

        What is the excuse for the US, where, in most states, a man can still legally rape his wife?

        What is the excuse for the US, where girls are still fast-tracked out of most math classes because "they are not smart enough to keep up"?

        The US doesn't have a large Islamic influence, yet much of what happens in the countries you mention also happen here in the good ol' USA. How 'bout we clean our own house before we invade someone else's house, OK?

        Just curious...

        by rev denise michel on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 01:18:55 PM PDT

        •  Can you spell...

          "moral equivalence?"

          Do you seriously think there are any serious lines to be drawn connecting the way the US Constitution treats women (or homosexuals, or religious, ethnic, or cultural minorities) and the way women (or homosexuals, or religious, ethnic, or cultural minorities) are treated in Islam?

          In the wake of the London bombings, there's been a great debate about the meaning of "multiculturalism" and political correctness. I suggest you brush up on the topic before penning anymore such diversionary diatribes.

          by Vincent A on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 09:25:43 PM PDT

    •  Cultural/tribal law

      Much of these problems are cultural and tribal more than Muslim.

      I basically agree with this very insightful post.  

      However, the implication is that you can't blame U.S. policy or even the Bush administration for these conditions.  A Gore administration's Pakistan policy would have looked pretty similar to Bush's.  

      The only real choices are to sever all ties with the country in question, which is really a non-option, or to engage them.  As is usually the case, the latter works better; compare the rights of women in, say, Dubai and Riyadh.

      by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 03:57:14 AM PDT

    •  Treatment of women in Islam

      "...Much of these problems are cultural and tribal more than Muslim..."

      Unfortunately, this line of reasoning misses the point. It is probably true that the treatment of women in most societies around the world is unequal to say the least. We must acknowledge, however, that progressive states around the world are striving to strengthen existing legislation or add new laws to combat gender discrimnation. Surely, the enforcement of these laws also leaves much to be desired. Having egalitarian laws is the first step of progress, though.

      In Islamic states, unfortunately, the legal trend is regressive. Pakistan, although originally founded on more egalitarian principles, has tended towards an Islamic State, with Sharia (Islamic Law) governing its prosecution of crime and deviant behavior.

      The Sharia law governing rape would be considered as abhorrent in any progressive civil society -
      "...Sharia needs four male adult Muslim eyewitnesses to prove prohibited sex (Zina), and as Sharia regards rape in prohibited sex (Tex(sic) of Pakistan's Hudood Law), there are many reports of flogging raped girls, even minors, for want of such requisite evidence. The raped girls and women either report the rape to police or get pregnant. Sharia court regards these as "proofs" of having prohibited sex. For widows and divorced women the punishment of getting pregnant is stoning to death- (Maliki Sharia), if there are no such eyewitnesses to prove the rape." There are of course more and worse. See Can Sharia (Islamic Law) work in the 21st Century?

      While I agree that it'd be bigotted to brand all muslims as champions of Sharia, I am puzzled by the reluctance to criticize Islam. It is after all a religion, and here is the definition of religion from dictionary.com:
         1.
               1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
               2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
         2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
         3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
         4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

      While all relgions may have at least some anchronistic and discriminatory practices, the danger of Islam is that it is very political, and aims to establish theocratic states - Iran, Pakistan, Nigeria...and now Iraq, thanks to Bush. When laws follow religion uncritically, all progress is doomed.

         

      by rationalfool on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 12:47:45 PM PDT

•  Whatever became

  of that sheik they arrested in the Danny Pearl case?  Nothing, probably.

  by BobNJ on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 05:23:58 PM PDT

  •  He was sentenced to death.

    by Tirge Caps on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 05:45:46 PM PDT

  •  Anti-Semitism...

    [snip] How many Americans are aware of the pervasive and vile anti-Semitism preached throughout the Arab world and available in most of the mosques in our own country? Pearl Death [snip]

    One minor point...

    Both Arabs and Jews are Semites. That is what the people in that part of the world are called. Arabs do not spout anti-Semitism, for to do so would be anti-themselves. They spout anti-Israelism (I think I just made up that word, not sure though). One of their stated goals is to destroy Israel, not the Semite world in general.

    Just thought I'd point that out...

    by rev denise michel on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 01:31:37 PM PDT

    •  Oh please.

      Everyone knows what "anti-Semitism" actually means. So what's the point of this bloviating rhetorical sophistry?

      by Vincent A on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 09:20:40 PM PDT

      •  Word usage...

        [snip] Everyone knows what "anti-Semitism" actually means. So what's the point of this bloviating rhetorical sophistry? [snip]

        I will answer that question...

        Here is what is in the New World Dictionary (I did take out the pronunciation because it turns into machine language when copy/pasted). It will show you why I said that they aren't anti-Semites.  

        anti-Semitic
        adj.
        < anti-Semitism < Ger Antisemitismus, coined (1879) by Wilhelm Marr, Ger writer
        1    having or showing prejudice against Jews
        2    discriminating against or persecuting Jews
        3    of or caused by such prejudice or hostility Also written an-ti[semit-ic
        an-ti-Semit-i[cally
        adv.
        an-ti-Sem-i[tism#
        n.

        
        USAGE--Some writers and scholars prefer the alternate form antisemitic because they contend that the form anti-Semitic suggests being opposed to (the) Semites, a term that could include Arabs and other peoples, when in fact the word means "anti-Jewish."

        I am a pedant and an author. I try to use  specific language as much as possible. If one wants to say that Arabs (or anyone else) are anti-Jewish, then maybe using "antisemitic" (as suggested in the USAGE para above) would be more on-point. It is certainly more specific, as the scholars and writers in the above para note. That is the only point I was trying to make. I did not intend to start a flame-war / troll-rating situation.

        by rev denise michel on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 04:34:49 PM PDT

    •  But at the same time

      The "Protocols of Zion" have been floating around in the Mid-East since it was first written. I certainly am not an apologist for Isaeli policies regarding the treatment of Palistinians. I support the Palistinians' right to a true homeland, and most Jews I've met in the US support this too, as well as half of those in Israel. But at the same time, I find the rising anti-semitism in Europe very disturbing. Don't go sugar-coating this phase: It refers to Jews, and everyone knows that.

      by bleeding blue on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 11:25:17 PM PDT

•  Rage....

  One of the reasons I hate reading articles like this is that I feel powerless and unable to help. Incandescent with rage as I am at this woman's, and other womens maltreatment, what can we all do? What the fuck can we REALLY do to bring these so called "men" to justice? Tell me because I want to help do it.
  

  by patski98 on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 05:26:36 PM PDT

  •  Global Fund for Women

    Global Fund For Women

    I donated to them recently. I don't know how else I can help. At least when I donate to them I know the money is going where it needs to go, to help out women in the less fortunate parts of the world as well as in America.

    For a more cheering tale, sorta...
    I have a friend who was date-raped while she was pregnant. I've never felt so angry and so helpless, but her family was very caring and supportive of her. However, the cops wouldn't do a thing, and it seemed like the fucking slimebag would get off scot free. But Mother Nature looks out for her own. You see, my friend, she'd had a UTI (Urinary Tract Infection) at the time, not her fault, related to something medical or another. Anyway, she'd been taking meds for it and getting it treated and such. Well, the rapist, of course, didn't think to ask beforehand. And he wound up catching the UTI. He actually called her a month later, begging and pleading for her to tell him what was wrong with his dick, and why did it feel like he was pissing fire. She laughed and hung up. Apparently, from what she said, if you don't get that sort of thing treated it's like having gonorhea and it can lead to loss of sexual function and sterility. And of course, he couldn't go see a doctor, because then he would have had to explain where he got the UTI from.

    Moral of the story being, karma has it's own way of raping the rapists, and you can be sure chickens have a way of coming home to roost. Also, never piss off a witch.

    by jabbausaf on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 05:37:52 PM PDT

  •  You can make a stink

    Our tax money helps support Pakistan and a number of other countries where human rights are regularly trampled.  

    We can write, call, and hound our Politicians and demand that our money and our "friendship" is linked to human rights improvements.  Yeah, one letter means a little, but thousands of letters mean a lot.  

    by bella on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 09:22:34 PM PDT

•  This Freaking Crap

  Warning: expletives abound.

  This fucking shit drives me mad!!!

  This isn't 14th Century London.  This isn't 15th Century Istanbul.  This isn't 16th Century Jerusalem and this isn't 17th Century New York City.

  Repeat after me world:

  WOMEN ARE NOT MORALLY INFERIOR PIECES OF PROPERTY TO BE DOUBTED, SUBJEGATED AND TORMENTED.

  I have so many friends who have been raped here on American soil. I know so many heterosexual men who do not understand sexual boundaries.  And this is freaking America!  How the HELL can any country uphold laws like this?  How the HELL can another country sit by and let it happen!  I'm not saying we should invade them, but can't we write a treaty on Women's Rights with punitive apparatii meant to shepherd ignorant, sexist, destructive MONSTROUS FUCKING COUNTRIES LIKE THIS?!?!?!

  This is too fucking ridiculous. TOO FUCKING RIDICULOUS.  Instead of helping people like Dr. Shazia we're blowing up her peers in Iraq.  These stupid motherfuckers running DC are trying to, in one administration, refight Vietnam and the Iranian Revolution while indulging in the bullshit of Iran-Contra.  They need to get their head out of their collective ass and do -something- about this shit.  I don't give a good goddamned how strategic an ally Pakistan is.

  THIS IS RIDICULOUS.  Fucking ridiculous.

  Sorry for the cursing, but this shit pisses me off like no other.

  by electricgrendel on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 05:26:59 PM PDT

•  It's all okay, people, no need to be alarmed.

  You all have DVD players. The world is fine.

  Get back in your SUV and carry on consuming.

  by HollywoodOz on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 05:29:42 PM PDT

  •  The point?

    You all have DVD players. The world is fine.

    Get back in your SUV and carry on consuming.

    HollywoodOz, what is your point?  That if everyone stopped watching DVDs or driving SUVs, all would be fine for women in NWFP?

    Women's rights in Central Asia and the subcontinent have gotten a lot of attention since 2001, and they continue to do so -- look at the case of Muktar Mai.  To demand 24/7 attention to the issue is perhaps unrealistic.

    by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 04:04:12 AM PDT

    •  My point.

      Is that most people, even the outraged, do very little to prevent things like this from happening.

      Attention is nothing. Enron got 'attention', but then what?

      We're all too easy to placate with attention, but who among us does anything concrete?

      I'm not saying those of us here, on this site, have reason to be ashamed. What I'm saying is that 99.99% of the people out there do.

      by HollywoodOz on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 09:40:35 AM PDT

•  Why oh why

  was the backwardness and terror imposed by the Islamic tribes and regimes of this part of the world only recognized now? When the Soviets were saying that they were fighting Islamic backwardness in Afghanistan, and training schoolteachers to teach boys AND girls, supporting women moving into occupations, campaigning against the feudal bride price (and yes, heavy handedly trying to push their regime and influence), how come then these same Islamic freedom haters, as Armando so rightly labels them, were pronounced "Freedom Fighters"!? and trained and hailed in this country from the right wing to (almost the entire) left wing?!

  We didn't create the Islamic regime of Pakistan, nor the Taliban, nor Wahabism... but we have certainly backed them, trained their followers (including bin Laden), given them millions of dollars and high tech war material... and all in the name of our (now past) holy Cold War. And the political commentators have not renounced it yet. And the architects of this policy occupy the seats of U.S. power even now.

  It is sickening and disgusting. How about we first honestly and bravely face our OWN mistakes in making our bargain with Islamic (and sometimes other types of )fundamentalism in order to destroy "atheistic" communism?

  The poor motherfuckers in their ratty, exploitation-created poverty used to turn to utopias of a classless society and progress for an eventual unity of mankind (as misused as they were by Stalinist tyrnanny). Now these poor souls turn to the mullahs and jihad, and to make their lives meaningful, strap a bomb onto their chests and pray to meet the virgins in heaven, and make their families proud.

  God help what we have contributed to that. It's called blowback, folks. And the truth of that should be part of our daily dialogue, so we don't make the same mistake again.

  That's my rant for the day.

  by Valtin on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 05:32:01 PM PDT

•  well said, sir

  "The truth has never mattered to Bush. And neither, apparently, do the rights and well being of women."

  Nail on the head.

  I have a very young daughter -- just months old -- and it has made this all the more real.

  My heart goes out to any women, and any family trying to raise daughters, in Bush's phoney "democratic" ally countries.   They're staring down the barrel of a gun, and that gun is being steadied by Bush's hand.

  Do I even need to point out that Bush's bosom pals (and dear family friends), the Saudi Arabians, have abused, oppressed and MURDERED women for years?   And yet he has no problem strolling hand-in-hand with them.  

  The Saudis get invited to Bush family barbecues, even as they behead women back home.

  ...Yes, rightwingers, there's your favorite trump word! "Beheadings" is supposed to shut down any discussion, right?

  But your boy Bush is FINE with beheadings, really.  Just ask "Bandar Bush"!

  BUSH'S CLOSE FRIENDS BEHEAD WOMEN WHO FIGHT FOR THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS..

  Like I said in an earlier thread, the word "hypocrisy" is no longer sufficient to describe this accumulation of filth that is the Bush administration.

  Only the word EVIL comes close.  

  by chumley on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 05:34:17 PM PDT

  •  Bush's Beheaders

    Just to document the above, re Bush's pals who love to lop off heads...

    This is from the

    CAPITAL PUNISHMENT UK website.  

    I cross-checked the numbers with Amnesty International, and all seemed right.

    The majority of people beheaded by Bush's Saudi pals are still men, but women get beheaded too.

    PLEASE NOTE THAT BEHEADING OF WOMEN DIDN'T START UNTIL THE 1990s.

    And while many are beheaded for crimes as we'd recognize them here in the U.S. (laying aside the proportion of punishment TO the crime for the moment), people can be and ARE beheaded for "Apostasy and certain other offences."

    Apostasy: "A departure from one's religion; cause."  (Random House dictionary)

    People are BEHEADED by Bush's family friends...
    WOMEN are BEHEADED by Bush family friends...

    For NOT AGREEING with the government.  
    For NOT AGREEING with the government's dictated religion.
    For SPEAKING OUT.
    For TRYING TO ENJOY basic human rights.

    And any GOP weaseling about "well, they're getting better..." is EVIL.  If beheading is the uiltimate proof of terrorist barbarism, then BUSH IS VERY GOOD FRIENDS WITH TERRORIST BARBARIANS.  Period.  End of discussion.  You can't have it both ways.  

    Details below.  WARNING:  horrific.

    most emphases mine)
    -------------

    
    Saudi Arabia - beheading in the 21st century.

    Saudi Arabia uses public beheading as the punishment for murder, rape, drug trafficking, sodomy and armed robbery, apostasy and certain other offences. 45 men and 2 women were beheaded in 2002,  a further 52 men and 1 woman in 2003 and 35 men and a woman in 2004.

    The condemned of both sexes are given tranquillisers and then taken by police van to a public square or a car park after midday prayers. Their eyes are covered and they are blindfolded. The police clear the square of traffic and a sheet of blue plastic sheet about 16 feet square is laid out on the ground.

    Dressed in their own clothes, barefoot, with shackled feet and hands cuffed behind their back, the prisoner is led by a police officer to the centre of the sheet where they are made to kneel facing Mecca. An Interior Ministry official reads out the prisoner's name and crime to the crowd of witnesses.

    A policeman hands the sword to the executioner who raises the gleaming scimitar and often swings it two or three times before approaches the prisoner from behind and jabbing him in the back with the tip of the sword causing the person to raise their head. (see photo)

    Normally it takes just one swing of the sword to sever the head, often sending it flying some two or three feet. Paramedics bring the head to a doctor, who uses a gloved hand to stop the fountain of blood spurting from the neck. The doctor sews the head back on, and the body is wrapped in the blue plastic sheet and taken away in an ambulance. The body is then buried in an unmarked grave in the prison cemetery.

    Beheadings of women did not start until the early 1990s, previously they were shot. 34 women have been publicly beheaded up to the end of 2004.  Most executions are carried out in the three major cities of Riyadh, Jeddah and Dahran and Saudi executioners take great pride in their work and the post tends to be handed down from one generation to the next.
    ---------

    Bottom line:

    Bush's good pals, business partners, and political allies are TERRORISTS.  

    They BEHEAD WOMEN.

    And he's just fine with that.
    

    by chumley on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 06:31:33 PM PDT

    •  He's just fine ? Nope, he wants the same here!

      Remember when he said a dictatorship would be easier ?

      He must have spent a lot of time envying how easy of a ride his Saudi buddies had, not having to c ater to civilians or face elections...

      by lawnorder on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 08:13:47 PM PDT

    •  Remember Karla Faye Tucker?

      Bush ridiculed her for pleading with him not to be put to death. And Bush was also the governor who presided over literally hundreds of executions of men, women and children in Texas. His good buddies in Saudi Arabia have their work cut out for them to equal his record.

      by matt n nyc on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 12:57:57 AM PDT

  •  Human rights? Mind the flames.

    Mecca, 2002.

    by musing graze on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 06:41:52 PM PDT

    •  Thanks for the link

      Copied this from the article's conclusion:

      "The religious police are widely feared in Saudi Arabia. They roam the streets enforcing dress codes and sex segregation, and ensuring prayers are performed on time.

      Those who refuse to obey their orders are often beaten and sometimes put in jail."
      

      Bush's good buddies -- his hand-holdin' pals --  are the BOSSES of these fascist thugs and murderers.  

      Yeah, freedom is on the march.  In the other fucking direction.

      by chumley on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 11:06:34 PM PDT

  •  Hey "kaivles"!

    You have a problem with my statement?  

    Come on out of the woodwork and debate.  Don't just troll-rate and run:

    kaivles 1

    Seems this rating is the one and only thing you've ever done here on the site.  But you have to start somewhere, huh?

    Come on out and argue.  I'm ready.  

    by chumley on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 09:20:00 PM PDT

    •  Chirp...Chirp...Chirp...

      Crickets.  

      Scared to show yourself and discuss this, huh kaivles?

      I win by default.

      by chumley on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 08:30:06 AM PDT

•  Who Hates Our Freedom?

  Bush does.

  by Andrew C White on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 05:58:09 PM PDT

•  what rights?

  Bush and his conservative buddies think that women ARE property: destined to raise children and to keep quiet and to be used and discarded at whim.  Those are the "family values" of the Administration here, so why should we expect them to act on behalf of women elsewhere?  Men who only respect force of arms and see violence as the solution to all problems will never allow women to have equal rights... or indeed any rights.  

  And, as soon as Roberts gets in, we'll see just how bad it will get here in America, too. :<

  Carolly

  by hauksdottir on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 05:58:20 PM PDT

•  that's

  what produces Terrorists.

  by hfiend on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 06:06:56 PM PDT

•  Iraq and Uzbekistan are babes in the woods...

  when compared to Pakistan. Musharraf and his army cronies have been double dealing USA since the Clinton days! Pakistan has truly nothing to offer the world other than export of terrorism and hatred. This US administration will continue to say that Musharraf is a friend because he allows US use of some facilities. But till an US government recognizes that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are the source of all evil, more innocents will continue to die. Even today (July 30th, 2005) there is increasing evidence of Pakistan saying one thing and doing another (fresh hostage crisis in Kashmir with several people dead and India saying terrorists are still being trained in Pakistan and coming over the borders; 3 day back LA Times report of the Afghanistan army command saying Pakistan army is training Taliban and sending them back with sophisticated cell phone rigged Improvised Exlposive Devices IEDs).

  by Suvro on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 06:07:34 PM PDT

  •  Stop your Ignorant hatemongering

    Please stop your hate mongering, your condemnation of all of Pakistan is highly irrational. Pakistan has a long history of being a productive geo-political resource in exports, agriculture, and a strong voice in helping moderate the reigon despite its misfortune of being used as a staging area by the US to fight the USSR in Afghanistan and by suffering at the hands of the various dictators supported by the US. Pakistan remains a hopeful and wonderful home for millions.  

    If you cannot differentiate between the doings of the Pakistani Dictators and the majority of the 160 million people who live there you need to get your head examined and stop thinking of yourself as a liberal.

    You are obviously an ignorant hatemonger, and I am surprised that not a single "liberal" called you on it.

    go read www.satribune.com, or www.dawn.com to at least get some idea of what you are speaking about before spewing hate.

    by zhivago on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 09:37:30 AM PDT

    •  You go read first...

      South Asian Analysis Group and then come back and accuse me of being ignorant. You can disagree with the opinions but not the facts.

      The vast majority of Pakistani populace supports UBL and his tactics.

      by Suvro on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 10:50:18 PM PDT

      •  You stand accused.

        Well I went to the site, please point out the specific article you are referring to, there was a lot of analysis there. I would really like to see these FACTS you speak of. I will disregard the that you have chosen an India based analysis group to study Pakistan with ( no bias there) nevertheless I would be happy to look at these FACTS.

        What you and other fake liberals like you fail to understand is that if a country of 160 million people was really all crazy for UBL do you think the status quo of the country would be the same?

        When will hatemongers like you realize that before condemning a nation, at least understand the reality that it is a 3rd world country where most people are illeterate and poor, working hard each day to put food on their tables to feed their families, and MOST of them are not intersted in matters of war or peace.

        IT IS ECONMOIC STUPID, when will you learn you hatemonger before you stop making generalized statements based on petty little articles you have read. THINK FOR YOURSELF, at least before you condemn a whole nation.

        by zhivago on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 08:17:32 AM PDT

•  wwrs

  I wonder what Santorum would say?  I shudder to think.

  by fstop on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 06:10:13 PM PDT

•  Uzbekistan kicks out US base

  Uzbekistan orders US Camp Stronghold Freedom out in 180 days

  Camp Stronghold Freedom apparently is a logistics base for transporting supplies to Afghanistan by road.

  Reasons for ousting are vague.

  by Maynard G Krebs on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 06:13:53 PM PDT

•  Shocking, horrifying

  What a horrifying situation, when rape victims cannot go to authorities for fear of legal reprisals and even more rape.  Probably the main way to make this change is for influential people to bring it to light and keep on expressing outrage until something changes.  

  I imagine though that Pakistan's nuclear status creates some wrinkles in our diplomacy with them and our ability to bring pressure to bear.

  by danithew on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 06:13:57 PM PDT

•  As I often do, I have the radio on

  as I surf the net. And is often the case in the summer, I am listening to a baseball game, the Sox playing the Twins. As I read this diary, an ad comes on, a promotion in fact, for a future ballgame.

  It seems they're having a "bring your old cell phone to dump night" at Fenway.

  Now, I don't mean to diminish the effort, but when compared to this diary, it gave me pause. Because, you see, these phones are going to be refurbished, and with some minutes built in, given to victims of domestic abuse in the Boston area.

  Our own government can't find the wherewithal to do this - why are we wondering that Pakistan can't do more than we are?

  by Spud1 on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 06:37:19 PM PDT

•  And folks wonder why...

  ... women that take Female Civil Rights and Equality seriouosly get upset about things like pie fights and compromising on the rights of female citizens to make medical decisions in consultation with their doctors and their doctors only... just as male citizens do.

  We aren't as bad as the Pakistan's of the world but if your eyes are open it is not hard to see how institutionalized the second classing of women is in American society as well.

  by Andrew C White on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 06:38:06 PM PDT

•  All freedom, no justice

  Bush says 'freedom' in every sentence, but I have yet to hear the word 'justice' pass his lips.

  Freedom without justice means, for the weak and poor, abuse and terror.

  But that seems to be OK with George.

  by d52boy on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 07:21:03 PM PDT

•  Why aren't we allowed into Pakistan ?

   The head of Pakistani Intelligence wires thousands of dollars to Atta, the lead terrorist in 9/11 attack, days before flying a plane into Trade Center. A decade before, the Pakistani Intelligence is the frontline for Cold War battle against the Commies in Afghanistan. Bush family members have been active there for decades.

  by moondawg on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 07:41:14 PM PDT

•  Bush invaded Iraq to destroy the New Deal.

  Bush wanted to look like a war hero so he could parlay it into destroying Medicare, and Social Security and the rest of the new deal.

  Join the revolution for progressive legislation

  http://www.boycott-republicans.com

  by buckfush777 on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 08:03:50 PM PDT

•  Sometimes the men rape these women so much

  that the women have to have surgeries for many reasons including to stop the chronic bleeding as is most commonly seen in many parts of Africa..

  I think that this was a powerful, concise, and effective diary and Times article and I appreciated it... the revealing of the hard truth is necessary for action to stop it to manifest..

  I can't even describe how utterly I condemn rapists who must just hate his fellow man and hate himself.. they must be hunted down like the rabid dogs they are and put away forever, and in America, this will require us to address non-violent drug prisoners and institute decriminalized, health-care oriented laws.. only then, in our own backyards (much less in Pakistan), will we rid ourselves of the scourge of pedophiles and rapists and societal victimizers in general.

  And the whole time, we will be getting poached by the scum-bag religious radicals, Islamic radicals from abroad and here in America by the American religious radicals, the far-Right Baptists and certain evangelical sects, who have been waging holy war against "liberals" instituting paramilitary tactics with their Holy Drug Inquisition.

  It't not the economy stupid.. it's the radical religous theocrats stupid.  (Sorry for slight diary hyjacking, great diary dude.)

  by The Gnostic on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 08:16:54 PM PDT

•  It's not about religion

  it's about power,and bullies pick on the weaker,whether it's the 'weaker' sex or the weaker country.

  by shycat on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 08:17:53 PM PDT

  •  Whosoever wants to understand why rape is condoned

    in all cultures needs to read Against Our Will by Susan Brownmiller.

    by Little Red Hen on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 08:00:43 AM PDT

•  Iraq has it too, done or condoned by our own

  Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Focus shifts to jail abuse of women

  According to the New Yorker magazine the photos and videos so far unreleased by the Pentagon show American soldiers "having sex with a female Iraqi prisoner", and a secret report by General Antonio Taguba into the scandal confirms that US guards videotaped and photographed naked female prisoners and that "a male MP [military police] guard" is shown "having sex with a female detainee".

  Yesterday Prof Shaker, who began researching the subject this year for Amnesty International, said she believed the woman involved had been killed. "The girl was called Noor. When I went to her house in Baghdad earlier this year she had disappeared. The neighbours said that she and her family had moved away."

  Since the US military began its inquiry.. many female detainees have been released.. But five women are still in solitary confinement in Abu Ghraib's notorious 1A cellblock where as many as 1,500 pictures were taken in November and December... there are unanswered questions as to why the women have been locked up without charge.

  According to Dr Khuzaai, two of the women are married to high-ranking and absconding Ba'ath party officials.. Human rights campaigners say the US military frequently arrests wives and daughters during raids if the male suspect is not at home.

  US officials have acknowledged detaining women in the hope of convincing male relatives to provide information: a strategy that is in violation of international law. "The issue is the system," Nada Doumani of the International Committee of the Red Cross said yesterday.

  by lawnorder on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 08:18:01 PM PDT

  •  Well that's pretty evil

    Holding women from their families - pretty much sounds like taking a hostage to me.

    by diplomatic on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 09:04:14 PM PDT

•  Pakistani-American View

  Folks - the bottom line is that Pakistan needs democracy. Musharraf and his ISI and military are not really serious about fighting extremists, and it is not in the US long term interest to let Musharraf supress democracy. Millions of people in Pakistan are sick and tired of extremist and military support of extremists. Please read www.satribune.com to get an idea of what is going on.

  Pakistan is at a crucial point in its history, and it's in dire need for democratic change, there are elected officials and secular politicians waiting to run the country but Musharraf is supressing them by outlawing peaceful demonstration and playing religous parties against the secular ones, to stay in power.

  Mushrraf's and Pakistani military's immoral support of the taliban and their warmongering in the past has put Pakistan's in harm's way and allowed a free reign to extremists over pakistani land.

  by zhivago on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 08:26:00 PM PDT

•  Is anybody surprised?

  the Pakistani government has supported terrorism for many years (see Kashmir) and broke the cease-fire line during the Kargill skirmish with India.

  The Pakistani government supported and in many ways created the Taliban.

  Top Pakistani government officials sold nuclear secrets to countries such as