| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Note that non-Muslim women are included. From AsiaNews, with thanks to Nicolei:
Mosul (AsiaNews) – Violence against women and Christians and threats of forced islamisation are growing in Mosul. At the beginning of Ramadan, a flyer started appearing at Mosul University promising “death to all Iraqi women who did not cover their heads”. It was signed by a shadowy group calling itself the Mujahideen Parliament representing six armed groups: ‘Monotheism and martyrs’, the ‘Army of Sunnah members’, ‘Mujahideen Squads’, the ‘Islamic army’, the ‘Secret Islamic army’ and the ‘Sunnah members group’. It warned women against wearing make-up and Western-style clothes. “We will follow transgressors to their homes,” it said, “and shall not hesitate from striking you”.A few days ago, two young women were attacked for not wearing a head cover in a Mosul market. A syringe containing nitric acid—a corrosive liquid inorganic acid— was sprayed onto their faces.
A process of islamisation of cultural and social mores similar to that imposed by the Talebans in Afghanistan or Khomeiny’s pasdarans in Iran is underway and its main targets are university students. Young Christian female students are especially singled out. In another flyer signed by a group calling itself the “phalanxes to settle scores with collaborators and spies”, Christians are accused of spreading “corruption and shamelessness in the streets”. They will “suffer violence and persecution in their homes and their churches” if they do not stop “cooperating with the infidel invader”.
Posted by Robert at October 25, 2004 7:06 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Welcome to the new Iraq. Get used to it. And don't whine, otherwise you're a LIBERAL!
Posted by: kj![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 25, 2004 7:41 AM
While this is horrible, I suspect most Iraqis are glad the government-run rape rooms are closed. And the political prison for children is closed. And the mass graves have stopped growing.
Oh, and their new government is working AGAINST these groups, not funding them.
Posted by: Robert Crawford at October 25, 2004 7:46 AM
I don't know if this would work in Iraq but ...
They could set up a sting. Send out a bare headed female decoy and an armed surveillance team to intentionally lure these fanatics threatening harm. Draw them into the noose so-to-speak then eliminate the bastards one by one.
Posted by: Kemaste at October 25, 2004 10:39 AM
No KJ, You’re a liberal because you like to believe that Iraq is worse off now then under Saddam! He was a terrible mad man, yet he was very nice to the Christians, ya right!
You cant pee on my leg and make me believe its raining.. It is sad that the liberal media cant hide there hatred for President Bush enough to report real news. You cant believe what the main stream news media reports, there own agenda blinds them. This is the age of misinformation brought to you by the liberal news media... Liberals and lies go hand and hand... Kj maybe you can get the food blister ( michael moore ) to do a undocumentary about how we ( the republicans with Saudi money ) took Iraq under Saddam from a very safe and loving place to live and made it so unsafe that now all are in danger!
Don’t just talk the talk, walk the walk!
at October 25, 2004 11:33 AM
Bar I do walk the walk.
The people on in Iraq are saying that it was better under Saddam. I'm not saying that. I guess it depends on your point of view.
Instead of insulting me, just tell me one reason to think that life for the average Iraqi will be better under an Ayatollah than under Saddam. The hordes of "morality police" are already out in full force. Can you imagine what they will do when the US troops leave? No, of course you can't imagine it. If you had an imagination, you'd be a liberal.
"Food blister?" Oh, at first I thought you meant Bill Bennet or Rush Limbaugh.
Iraq will be a theocratic hellhole where women have no rights, and all non-muslims are dhimmis. That is a guarantee. The only difference between Iran now and Iraq in two years is that Iraq will have trillions of dollars in oil at it's disposal to help spread the jihad all over the world.
THAT's why Iran is supporting Bush for president.
Posted by: kj at October 25, 2004 11:41 AM
The Islamists can allow America to install a government that is not based on Sha'ria law. They are willing to kill every man, woman, and child, to raze every building, destroy the oil industry, and to dig up the entire desert if necessary to enforce their vindictive revenge. Kj, I'm sure you "walk the walk," but Saddam enforced his "security" using brutality and terror. The Islamists will do the same. Iraq is a microcosm of how Islamists will terrorize the West in order to fulfill the dream of a triumphal Islam -- terror, destruction-- death, death, and more death.
Posted by: epg at October 25, 2004 11:56 AM
Sorry, KJ. If Iran is doing any endorsing of Bush, it is nothing more than a cynical ploy. The kind the DNC uses on a daily basis. btw we haven't seen much of you lately. Are you one of those traveling around to knock on people's doors late at night, telling them they are under investigation because they dared sign their names to a petition for Nader to be on the ballot?
Note to everyone: I think perhaps the reason Kerry has packs of lawyers ready to pounce, is one of his nuanced ways of bullying people not to vote.
Posted by: Gary at October 25, 2004 1:08 PM
This is a terrible story and is further evidence of why Islam must be stopped. Islam cannot win over the hearts of people and thus must be spread by the sword.
Speaking of endorsements. Wasn't there a frontpage story in Iran endorsing Kerry months ago. Kerry also enjoys the support of Yassir Arafat, Kim Jong-Il and the Viet Cong.
Posted by: Roxane at October 25, 2004 1:18 PM
KJ:
The mullahs haven't won quite yet (although doubtless that's what you'd like so you can continue to gloat).
If anything, on the way to dragging parts of the Middle East kicking and screaming into the 21st century, we could be in for a few years of knock 'em down/drag 'em out between the Sunni/Wahhabist/Saudi-funded faction and the Shi'ite/Iranian-funded faction a la Pakistan, just as we saw between Saddam and Khomeini.
Pitty the poor people caught in between, but the inevitability here doesn't lie in the overthrow of Saddam, but in the primal nature of totalitarianism -- secular or theocratic, in itself.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at October 25, 2004 1:48 PM
The Mullahs that condone these sorts of acts should be jailed. That is what we need to be doing you know. We need to be shutting down the schools that teach Jihad and jailing the Mullahs that are preaching it. They shouldn't be able to hide behind their religious skirts. If anything, the USA should be up in arms about the terrible human rights violations that are carried out in the name of Islam and fighting that tooth and nail.
I still haven't figured out why if most the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis why aren't we making Saudi Arabia safer for democracy right now? Why didn't we thump them at all? Never mind I know the answer.
f.g.
Posted by: f.g. at October 25, 2004 2:05 PM
Angry Muslims want to beat, rape and kill women because they're upset about Allah giving them all teeny wangers, leaving them unable to satisfy anything more than donkeys and each other on cold nights in the caves.
Posted by: DCWatson at October 25, 2004 6:20 PM
What if they allow all uncovered women to carry automatic rifles...then when the islamist comes up to them they can give them a bullet in the face.."You have some acid for me...here is some lead"
Posted by: obl r us at October 25, 2004 8:10 PM
One reason Iraq is better. Freedom! Democracy! The freedom to chose there own leaders.
The freedom to do nothing. The freedom to do something. The freedom to be stupid and the freedom to be smart.
Will Democracy work? That’s completely up to the Iraqis.
at October 25, 2004 8:21 PM
KJ:
Even if democratic elections lead to the installation of a theocracy in Iraq, so be it.
Muslims need to be shown proof that Islam is not the answer. The only way that they will be shown that proof is to give them a chance to try it out. The Russians tried communism and it took them quite a few decades before they figured out that it just wasn't working.
What is the alternative? Should we continue with the policy of subverting or overthrowing popularly elected Islamist governments a la Algeria? That policy will only make us more enemies. Far better that Muslims experiment with theocracies and become disenchanted with themselves. Only then, will they truly and with fervour reject Islam as the organizing principal for their societies.
I agree almost completely with Hugh Fitzgerald on this topic in that we should close the borders to Muslim immigration, cut off all aid to Muslim countries and let them rot inside their hell holes until they finally reject Islam themselves and homegrown Ataturks rise up everywhere.
Posted by: Admiral Don Juan at October 25, 2004 9:38 PM
Did I read the same media news items as everybody else?,people bragged about Iraq being the "cradle of civilization" and the dethroning of Saddam would free the Iraqis to reclaim their
status for education and justice.
The Americans didn't force the people to riot and loot the nation,nor did they endorse taking up arms and beheading the infidels.If this is how the Arabs and Iraqis view human rights and social morality,then lets put the blame where it's due and not excuse away the violence by these peace-loving people.
P.S.
I noticed the U.N. now bashes the USA for not protecting those WMD's that didn't exists,seems
the 350 Tonnes (metric ton 2200 lbs) of deadly explosives and warheads are missing.
This is the same U.N. the wouldn't admit they denied that they had proof the WMD's were destroyed or existed in secret hidding places.
at October 25, 2004 10:00 PM
Admiral Don Juan, do you honestly believe that people in an Islamic theocracy will be able to reject Islam? You can't reject Islam, because that's apostacy and the penalty for apostacy is death.
What you're saying is that you think that it's alright for Iraqis to suffer Islamic rule, on the folorn hope that one day that will reject it. Has that happened in Iran?
Stop screwing up other people's lives.
Posted by: Voltaire at October 25, 2004 11:21 PM
Admiral Don Juan, do you honestly believe that people in an Islamic theocracy will be able to reject Islam? You can't reject Islam, because that's apostacy and the penalty for apostacy is death.
What you're saying is that you think that it's alright for Iraqis to suffer Islamic rule, on the folorn hope that one day that will reject it. Has that happened in Iran?
Stop screwing up other people's lives.
Posted by: Voltaire at October 25, 2004 11:21 PM
The problem with democracy in the middle east is once the islamist governments is voted in that's the end of democracy.They will be just as brutal as the dictators.
Posted by: RED at October 26, 2004 12:08 AM
I think Admiral Don Juan makes an intersting point. I am just unsure though whether a theocracy on its own will implode. Theocracy may be on multiple levels a lousy political system to run a state socially and economically BUT is it bad enough that it will eventually collapse on its own? For example the Taliban regime was eradicated only due to US militarty intervention and pretty much all the other islamic states havn't fallen apart and become democracies after decades of dysfunctional operation. Unlike communism theocracies can allow for a restricted version of capitalism (e.g. private farming/land ownership) that may well be more efficient than pure communism in the long run (but not in the short run).
So are theocracies termirminally destined to eventaully collpase on themselves? This hasn't happened yet. My best guess is that theocracies like Iran may be very socio-economically inefficient but may remain viable because they are not as inefficient enough (unlike communism) so as to evnetually collpase. So if the muslims in such regimes don't mind living in a society with the socio-economic efficiencies of a middievil society (due to public ignorance engineered by the state) then such societies may be sustainable but pathetic on every measure compared to western capitalsit democracies.
I think maybe as the populations of these countries explode maybe then these islamist states will collapse but in middievil times when such regimes collapsed they were replaced with regimes similar to they ones they replaced. It really depends on the level of ignorance of political alternatives in the islamic society that has collapsed.
Posted by: obl r us at October 26, 2004 12:59 AM
What is really messed up about the Iraqi affair is that this country will become another Islamist shithole because we invaded.
Saddam was far more worried about the Iranians than he was worried about the US.
The only reason we went there was because Saddam was the only hold-out in the region. Don't get me wrong, the guy was a piece of shit, but he was no threat to us. He was a threat to Saudi Arabia, necesitating our presence in the gulf.
Wake up folks. The Islamic hoardes are coming, and we are not helping by invading Iraq.
Sadly, we must take a very vigilant approach to Islam, and that is not going to happen when our current president is so cozy with the Saudis.
"Islam is peace " ( Geaorge Bush ) MY ASS!
at October 30, 2004 11:18 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)