We have yet another story of a rape victim subjected to a demand for an honor killing in a traditional Muslim area. Kainat Soomro was gang-raped by four men at the age of 13. According to their religious and cultural traditions, her village classed her as a “Kari” or “black virgin” and ordered her killed. The family was attacked by the four men and other villagers and one of the sons was murdered after they refused to carry out the “honor” killing.
This nightmare unfolded in the rural village of Dadu in southern Pakistan and was chronicled in a new film “Outlawed in Pakistan.” Kainat was raped after walking home from school down a narrow village street. As she passed a shop owned by Shaban Saikh, he says that he and three other men including a father and son held her down and assaulted her. The rapists are accused of beating the father and one of her brothers and then the oldest brother disappeared (and was found murdered). This was all done in conformity with a bizarre religious code as a moral course of action.
The film shows how Kainat was faced with a hostile judge who attacked her for accusing a father and a son. The men were acquitted and she was found to lack “good character. If she was a decent woman, she would have sat at home, silent.”
Source: AU
Mike Spindell:
“The way I see it is that we haven’t had a justifiable cause for military intervention in almost 73 years.”
I cant say I disagree with you. Except I do think we should have done something to Al qeada and Bin Laden. I think 3-6 months would have been enough though.
I guess that you forget or disagree with the First Gulf War which was autorized by the ENTIRE world as vested in the UN. I guess that it is OK to junk the UN and its charter according to you.
“I guess that you forget or disagree with the First Gulf War which was autorized by the ENTIRE world as vested in the UN. I guess that it is OK to junk the UN and its charter according to you.”
Randjet,
You’re right that I though the first Gulf War was a boondoggle with the U.S. acting as Hessians for the Saudi’s. While I’m old enough to remember the hopes that many had for the UN and acknowledge that some of its constituent organizations (like WHO for instance) do good work, as a whole I believe that it is an ineffective and hypocritical organization. The U.N. backing of the 1st Gulf War was to give a cover to what was an operation to negate Iraq’s power in the ME. After two Gulf Wars do you really believe that Iraq and the ME are in better condition. Saddam was a vile autocrat leading his country’s oligarchy, but then so are the Saudi’s; the Oligarchy ruling Iran; President Morsi of Egypt; the moron in N. Korea; the ruling class in China; the military oligarchy in Pakistan; and so on and so forth. At least in Saddam’s Iraq women had a modicum of civil rights and the society was secular. The selective vilification of certain nations is never about their rulers and the oppression of their people and always about what profit can be gained from their overthrow.
Mike S, I see that you don’t concern yourself with facts of the case in the first Gulf War. The UN is a military alliance first and foremost which is supposed to provide collective security to its member nations. In FACT the UN is what our side was called in WWII, and as part of the UN Charter it stated that the first order of business for the UN is to defeat Japan. So when a full member nation as Kuwait is was invaded by another country, the UN is REQUIRED by its charter to come to the military defense of that nation which is a victim of that aggression. The first Gulf War had nothing to do with Saudi Arabia other than after Kuwait, Saudis were probably next on Husseins hit list.
The second Gulf War was opposed by Saudis and most other countries in the world and was against the UN. The US while it did not have justification for the invasion, it fell short of being labelled the aggressor for the simple reason that Iraq had violated the terms of its treaty obligations. So at worst the US fell into a grey area in its role.
I think that the UN has been too slow in reacting to genocide and the internal affairs of member countries. The Rwanda catastrophe is a prime example of this failure. I can understand the reason the UN could not and would not get involved since it would require a major revision of its charter to do so. At least the laterst Sec. Generals have stated that they are open to intervening militarily in such situations now. So the first Gulf War had nothing whatsoever to do with the internal regime of Iraq which is why Hussein was left in power. I think that was a mistake since the UN could have done and would have done a FAR better job than the US did alone. The US only had 60% of the troops while in the last one it was 90%. At least if the UN had gone into Bagdad, they would have had a better shot at keeping the peace and truly liberating Iraq since they would have had the manpower, and the language skills with the divisions of Egypt, Syria, and Saudis being there to keep order. Even Bush might have had a chance if he had listened to the US Army about how many troops were needed. Unfortunately, Rumsfeld thought that being a Navy flight instructor made him a military genius and went in way too light in troops. Then after they got their asses kicked, then they decided they needed more troops. Which was locking the barn door after the horse are gone.
“Mike S, I see that you don’t concern yourself with facts of the case in the first Gulf War. The UN is a military alliance first and foremost which is supposed to provide collective security to its member nations. In FACT the UN is what our side was called in WWII, and as part of the UN Charter it stated that the first order of business for the UN is to defeat Japan. So when a full member nation as Kuwait is was invaded by another country, the UN is REQUIRED by its charter to come to the military defense of that nation which is a victim of that aggression. The first Gulf War had nothing to do with Saudi Arabia other than after Kuwait, Saudis were probably next on Husseins hit list”
ArthurRE,
I’m well aware of the facts you mention. Since I am as old, or older than you I grew up with the UN as a major presence in my life/education, since I lived in NYC. I was perhaps seven when my class visited the UN and I was blown away by what I thought was its significance in the world. As I grew and as my education progressed I began to understand how limited and political the UN was as an organization. As a Jew, who was/is a supporter of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State my discomfit with the UN increased. When Egypt expropriated the Suez Canal in 1956 and refused to allow traffic through it shipping to Israel (against a UN ruling), Israel attacked (having been in a continual State of War w/Egypt since 1947 when Egypt attacked them) and was aided by Great Britain and France. The US, led by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles (A banker who had helped finance Hitler’s rise to power with his brother Allen then the head of the CIA) condemned the attack and stopped it.
After that UN “peacekeeping” troops were stationed on the borders ostensibly to prevent war. In 1967 when Egypt, Jordan, Syria and other Arab nations attacked Israel, the UN “peacekeepers” withdrew and Israel was forced to defend itself. This has been the case with UN “peacekeepers” throughout the world. The UN has become a debating society when it comes to world affairs and as a body exercises little initiative that doesn’t come from various spheres of influence. During the Cold War it was the US sphere of influence vs. the USSR/China sphere of influence. It is the same today except that the influence pertains more to the economic as Corporate interests dominate the constituent countries. If you’ve forgotten Saddam Hussein was our “ally” in the ME up until that first Gulf War. That he had acted more independently in the years leading up to Kuwait, had rankled the Washington Foreign Policy establishment, which had supported his war with Iran. It is a fact that in the months before his invasion he had discussed the policy with the then US ambassador to Iran who had told him words to the effect that the US would remain neutral. It was all a set up to weaken his power and independence. Also to in the ways of international politics there was some validity to his claim that Kuwait should be Iraqi territory.
In international affairs, where the Bush Family has any part, you can bet that it isn’t in the interest of fairness, justice and democracy. The UN being brought in was a cover to give the appearance of righteousness to another sordid war.
Mike S All I can say is WOW! I have never seen such an outright falsification of history and rationalizations in a long time. First to my point which you did not refute which is that the UN had an obligation to support Kuwait that it had to fulfill. If you recall your history, WWII started in 1935 when Italy invaded Ethiopia and the League of Nations did nothing at all in support of that poor country. After seeing the non performance of the League and the other powers, Hitler marched into the Rheinland of Germany and put his military there, against the treaty provisions. Then he proceeded step by step on his conquests and demands. I thought it was quite fitting that Etheopia was on the Security council when that vote was taken to use force against Iraq. It was a sweet vindication for them I am sure.
As for your contention that Kuwait should have been part of Iraq, it simply shows your ignorance of history since Kuwait existed LONG before Iraq was constructed after WWI. Kuwait was semi-independent even under the Ottoman Empire and paid dues to it. They wanted out, so they asked the Brits to come in and take them as a protectorate LONG before WWI. I guess you think that any country that does not meet Israel’s specifications does not deserve to exist.
You also fail to make your case for the US being the Hessians for Saudis, since the Saudis opposed the second Gulf War. How then does that square with your contention? You must also believe that the US started the war with Japan and that the Japanese were justified in attacking Pearl Harbor since FDR cut off 80% of their oil supplies. Israel has access to the Med and the Red Sea so they have no need for the Suez canal in any case. So the 1956 war was simply Isreali aggression.The Brits and the French DID NEED the Suez canal since most of their communications and supplies went through it for their Far Eastern colonies as did all of their oil. You have a point in that the UN has not enforced any of its resolutions against Israel, nor forced its compliance since the US has vetoed any such measures. So you are right in that politics does matter in deciding who to support. At least the UN does abide by its charter and does not go off to war without the Security Councils OK.
I was stationed in Turkey for the Sic Day War when Israel did a sneak attack on Egypt and Jordan and wiped out their Air Forces. I got to see the F-104s the US pulled out of Jordan before the attack What the US did not pull out the Israeli Air Force finished off. That was another act of aggression on the part of Israel, but since Israel did not take over and liquidate Egypt and the fact that the US would not allow the UN to act against Israel, they got away with it. In fact, there has only been one war in which Israel was not the aggressor, and that is the Yom Kipur war in which Israel was attacked first. I suggest you read a very good book on the IDF which is called the Sword and the Olive. It details all the facts of the establishment of the IDF and the various wars.
In any case, you still have not proved your contentions nor have you justified the UN NOT enforcing it rules militarily.
“First to my point which you did not refute which is that the UN had an obligation to support Kuwait that it had to fulfill”
Arthur,
I answered your point by explaining that the UN charter is a document that has no effective standing in International Law, since it is invoked or not depending upon the politics of the situation. While your point is correct in terms of the charter, it lacks meaning simply because the politics always trumps the responsibility.
“As for your contention that Kuwait should have been part of Iraq, it simply shows your ignorance of history since Kuwait existed LONG before Iraq was constructed after WWI.”
You misquote me, I said:
“Also to in the ways of international politics there was some validity to his claim that Kuwait should be Iraqi territory.”
That there was some validity to the claim is backed up here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/blog/harak.html
Like much in the ME the people’s there have long memories and traditions that were ignored in the Western world during its overtly imperialistic phase. The political situation is a muddied one an yet specifically because of oil the industrial world has great interest in meddling there. Also there is this:
“On 25 July 1990, the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq, April Glaspie, asked the Iraqi high command to explain the military preparations in progress, including the massing of Iraqi troops near the border.
The American ambassador declared to her Iraqi interlocutor that Washington, “inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion” on the disagreement between Kuwait and Iraq, stating “we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts.”
She also let Saddam Hussein know that the U.S. did not intend “to start an economic war against Iraq”. These statements may have caused Saddam to believe he had received a diplomatic green light from the United States to invade Kuwait.[20][21]
According to Prof. Richard E. Rubenstein, Glaspie was later asked by British journalists why she had said that, her response was “we didn’t think he would go that far” meaning invade and annex the whole country. Although no follow-up question was asked, one might assume that what the U.S. government thought in July 1990 was that Saddam Hussein was only interested in pressuring Kuwait into debt forgiveness and to lower oil production.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait
Then you went on to misquote me again:
“You also fail to make your case for the US being the Hessians for Saudis, since the Saudis opposed the second Gulf War. How then does that square with your contention?”
What I said related specifically to the question of the first Gulf War as shown below in my response to Randyjet.
“You’re right that I thought the first Gulf War was a boondoggle with the U.S. acting as Hessians for the Saudi’s. While I’m old enough to remember the hopes that many had for the UN and acknowledge that some of its constituent organizations (like WHO for instance) do good work, as a whole I believe that it is an ineffective and hypocritical organization.”
You’re simply wrong about the Suez War and it comes from the redefinition of history that has been spread about the ME and Israel, mostly funded by the Saudi’s. Finally, though you usually don’t seem naive you certainly are in this quote below:
“At least the UN does abide by its charter and does not go off to war without the Security Councils OK.”
Members of the Union Security Council:
“There are 15 members of the Security Council. This includes five veto-wielding permanent members—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—based on the great powers that were the victors of World War II. There are also 10 non-permanent members, with five elected each year to serve two-year terms. This basic structure is set out in Chapter V of the UN Charter. The current non-permanent members are Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Guatemala, Luxembourg, Morocco, Pakistan, Rwanda, South Korea, and Togo.”
Seriously Arthur, do you really think that any of the five permanent and 10 non-permanent members of the Security Council are not political entities who are more interested in their own national interests, rather than the cause of truth and justice? If you do then I commend your nobility of thought, but discount your insight on this question.
As far as your contentions about Israel go it all comes down to whether or not you believe Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish State. If you don’t, then I can understand your view of the events. Mine is different and I am no less a student of history than you are. To my mind there was ample justification for Israel attacking first against the vastly larger, massed armies of the Arab States, which by their own admission were in a continual “state of war” with Israel since Israel’s birth as a nation. If you believe, however, that the existence of Israel is a provocation, then I suppose from that mindset it was a dastardly deed. I’ve found from debating this topic for too many years with people that it is a fruitless proposition, so I shantcontinue this here.
To return though to my original point were I the parent of a person in the U.S. Armed Forces I wouldn’t have wanted my child to be put into harms way in the First Gulf War, since I don’t believe the interests of the U.S. were involved, unless you define interests as “serving the economic needs of the Oil Lobby”.
Mike Spindell:
why would you want to dampen the fighting spirit of warriors?
Isnt that a sure way to get them killed?
“Mike Spindell:
why would you want to dampen the fighting spirit of warriors?
Isnt that a sure way to get them killed?”
Bron,
The way I see it is that we haven’t had a justifiable cause for military intervention in almost 73 years.
Ralph Adamo:
Chris Christie and Hillary Clinton? I would write in my dog for president.
A man with no personal self restraint or an abused woman, what a choice that is.
“They told me I am not a real man,” Kainat’s brother, Sabir tells the film-makers, Habiba Nosheen and Hilke Schellmann, “[that] you failed to follow your tradition, you failed to kill your sister.”
Speechless
If all pitt bulls are evil then there is nothing wrong with banning whole tribes of humans on the basis of their breed. East of Corfu the Ten Commandments Don’t Apply. Is that not the 11th Commandment? We have too many people in this country already who are unemployed and we don’t need more bent nose shmucks from Chechnia coming over here to live off of welfare and beat up their women.
Yeah, I never thought about it before because the humans have generally been good pals in my lifetime but if they are gonna outlaw pitt bulls then for Christ sake (no pun intended) outlaw all Muslims.
Nazi Fascism was a religion of sorts. We outlawed it after WWII so it would not get a resurgence. There would be nothing wrong with putting a stamp of shame on Islam and limit visitation and immigration on that basis. It is kind of like outlawing pitt bulls as so many commenters on this blog have spoken up for.
The civilized world needs to start punishing these vicious pirate territories where civil rights are in the hands of the Imam or some dictator. Kick em out of the UN. Put em on a no fly zone unless you flush when you fly over. No trade with them. No immigration from those territories. If they want to treat their women like turds then we will treat their men as such. Pakistani men are definitely worse than Pitt Bulls. and there were many of you commenters in a previous blog who wish to outlaw Pittbulls.
-she was found to lack “good character. If she was a decent woman, she would have sat at home, silent.”-
It’s like these moral codes were written by ALEC
Who are we to question the wisdom of Allah? As we are now entering the true Leftist State in full force, we must learn to submit to the all-powerful State. Now, many of you would prefer to have your Leftist State run by Communists, and others would prefer a Nazi regime. However, I feel that the Muslim State offers the best balance of total control, periodic atrocities, and the complete obliteration of all culture and civilization that are the hallmarks of the quintessential Leftist State.
That’s why I support President Obama’s and Senator McCain’s efforts to arm the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Queda. This entire “Civilization” thing has gotten old, and we need to move forward with the next steps toward mass enslavement. I’m sure that all of you concur. I look forward to the next Presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Chris Christie, where Americans will have the “difficult” choice of a Leftist Democrat or a Leftist-RINO (Republican in Name Only). Sure, cynics will call that a Hobson’s choice. But they’re missing the whole point: in a Leftist State there ARE no choices.
I’m sorry but those idiots need to re-write their moral code/family values. They need to start doing Lorena Bobbit jobs on the perps. The whole situation is one big power trip. The men who attack and the idiot elders and mullahs who are so afraid of the power of women that they have to hide, beat, rape and murder them just for existing and showing how men can be uncivilized animals. When will they see the truth – it isn’t a woman’s issue/problem. It is a men’s problem.
Reply to Elsie; for heaven sake, I m not condoning,excusing ANY sexual misconduct. When I was a young girl I believed in the tooth fairy, I believed my parents would love and protect me. I believed in an altruistic life. But life is just not like that for the majority. Do I wish women could just serve in the military and men would be gentlemen and keep their big boy pants on…you bet ….but it won’t happen. It is not about perpetuating that men will be men therefore we must excuse horrid behavior for God sake. I am a strong believer in Jessica’s law. I also believe woman and men are equal but not the same and women do not belong in the military. The military by nature has to have a huge ego system that is necessary to kill and break stuff…add a female in the mix and your asking for trouble. I don’t have to like it…I just see it for what it is! I can just sit down and cry a river of tears for all the men who do not have courage and do what is right for this little girl who was so brutally assaulted in the WORST way possible weather here or in the east. If i did not believe in the deepest part of my soul that these dogs (no thats an insult to dogs) will have to face their maker i could not sleep tonight. You make some valid points no doubt…and Oh Vey back at you. LOL
Jean
“The military by nature has to have a huge ego system that is necessary to kill and break stuff…add a female in the mix and your asking for trouble.”
Jean,
If your broad statements are true, I’m not sure they are, but say they are for arguments, then might we assume that woman would dampen down the men’s
macho spirit. I certainly know that the women in my life have made me a better person.
sometimes i wish i was more religious so i could believe people who do things like this will get theirs in the end.
but i’m not and tomorrow if a little girl gets raped in the next village over the “wise old elders” will react in the same way.
so vent your spleens and get it out of your systems cause they’re our allies in the “war on terror”.
with friends like these who needs enemas.
Simple Justice in Pakistan: Cut off the perp’s weenie and hang it, with his name on a tag tied around the end, at the local bus station bulletin board. With all of our technology in the world this should be carried out by a justice drone. Maybe over time more of you people will agree with my daily statements that this is Pirate Territory. A so called Nation State located in the Pirate Territory should not be given such recognition. East of Corfu the Ten Commandments Do Not Apply. Fly over and flush.
I would say the subjects of the “honor” killings should begin with the judge and the village idiots who blamed this poor child for her rape.
I know that there is a reluctance to criticize a religion but if these religious leaders are using the religion to support their dictates. They must be deposed or the members of the religions cannot complain if people make this connection.
Christian religious leaders are criticized and RIGHTLY SO for their vile and disgusting pronouncements and their unchristian like behavior. Muslim leaders who are vile should also be subject to such criticism.
Well said Darren!
For those who mention to the effect of “well we should not be pointing our finger of blame to those in Pak who rape women and girls because we have issues here.”
So, what are you saying. We should not bring up and protest these rapes because of the shortcomings of our justice system? Who will be left in this world to stand up for those girs? It certainly is not going to come from those who are doing the raping.
How about doing something about both?
And NO just because a person in the US who is accused of rape has a right under the Sixth Amendment “to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor” it is not in any way proportional to a woman / girl bring raped and murdered in another country.
@ Jean: your comment is very annoying. For one, there is a pretty large group of raped victims within the military who are male. Secondly, why are you excusing some men who can’t keep it in their pants while many men in the military do manage to? Your comment only perpetuates the narrative that women don’t belong in the military while it’s clear that many of the women WANT to be in the military. It also perpetuates the narrative that ‘men will be men’. If the consequences for sexual harassment and other sex crimes were punished more seriously within the military, perhaps those supposed ‘bulls’ would be able to deal with those ‘red flags’. Oh vey, Jean!
What Mike S. said…. Now where are the jihadist when you need them…
Bettykath. You just made my point! Yes sometimes it’s about power but sometimes it’s about sex! Which is why I believe women do not belong in the military. Rape in the military will stop when dogs stop licking themselves. You stated that men are threated by women in the military. Personally I think you are over thinking it, men aren’t that complicated…they just like curves….and sticking women in their wake is like putting a red flag in front of a bull…..they are just going o react. And it’s the women who get hurt…..Not Fair! But it is what it is.
Jean