Iraqi gay leader gunned down.
Iraqi gay leader gunned down.
LGBT publication EDGE writes that in Iraq, “for gays and lesbians at least, times have never been worse.” Peter Tatchell of Outrage! reported on the most recent atrocity on Sept. 25, when an LGBT leader was gunned down:
This morning, I received news from Iraq that the coordinator of Iraqi LGBT in Baghdad, Bashar, aged 27, a university student, has been assassinated in a barber shop.
Militias burst in and sprayed his body with bullets at point blank range.
He was the organiser of the safe houses for gays and lesbians in Baghdad. His efforts saved the lives of dozens of people.
“Homosexuality was generally tolerated under Saddam,” Hali, founder of Iraqi LGBT, said in 2007. “There certainly was no danger of gay people being assassinated in the street by police. … Life in Iraq now is hell for all LGBT people; no one can be openly gay and alive.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The bible thumpers can now claim that the surge is working.
September 29th, 2008 at 7:02 pm… waiting for the first troll to come along and try to claim that Saddam tolerating the gay community proves that he was a leftist.
September 29th, 2008 at 7:05 pmHi, I’m ChuckySchmucky
ralphthewonderlama gay stuff to the states tax and spend lib obama ayers reverend wright need eradicate gay carter clinton did it so what dude poor people gays can do that stuff on their own time.
September 29th, 2008 at 7:09 pmThe fundamentalists of the war are strong.
September 29th, 2008 at 7:09 pmThe GOP, spreading freedom and democracy all over the countries it invades illegally…
They hate you for your freedoms… well, not exactly. They hate you for their lost freedoms under the sole of your military boots.
September 29th, 2008 at 7:16 pmQueuing Parodaryyl in 3..2..1..
September 29th, 2008 at 7:21 pmand that’s the ONLY reason we weren’t greeted with flowers as liberators – all the florists had been assassinated.
(sorry for the off-color humor – any offense was directed only “to the right”)
September 29th, 2008 at 7:31 pmAnd in Vancouver B.C., a gay man was beaten by a group of cowardly thugs because he was gay. These homophobes are mentally ill & need to seek help.
September 29th, 2008 at 7:33 pmOh, so that’s what McCain means by victory.
September 29th, 2008 at 7:34 pmOne thing in the book “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder” by Vincent Bugliosi really stuck with me.
You know what Saddam was busy doing when we attacked? Trying to find a publisher for his third-rate pulp fiction. He was *writing*.
Now stuff like this comes to light – the country is *more* oppressive than ever before, new terrorists are coming from the woodwork. Has anyone looked at pictures of Baghdad before and after our invasion?
We made a terrible, horrifying mistake. Nobody will admit it, and we continue making it over and over.
Sure, I’ll admit that Saddam’s regime was not ideal. However, the more I hear, the less “evil” it actually seemed.
September 29th, 2008 at 7:43 pmI can just see the American Taliban all tingly with excitement imagining the same thing here.
Sickos
September 29th, 2008 at 7:44 pmtombaker…ah, too clever for your own good, tom.
That kind of humor is best left to those who live the experience.
I was thinking about the comparisons Republicans kept making a while back…”it’s safer in Baghdad than Indianapolis” and so on.
This murder is another indicator that the sectarian violence that the “surge” was supposed to quash (amongst other benchmarks) has done nothing constructive—in fact it has been a ‘withdrawal in place’ by the US. As long as US troop deaths were reduced for the US election season, that’s all that mattered for the Republicans. Now the Iraq disaster has been forgotten in favor of the US economic disaster.
Armed political-religious extremists are free to attack almost anyone that their prejudices allow and the US military has no desire, few options and certainly no instructions to do anything about it.
It’s small ‘incidents’ like this though that can help put such a huge clusterf–k back into perspective, at least for a little while, and IMHO that’s really the thrust of your sardonic joke, yeah?
September 29th, 2008 at 8:03 pmThis highlights Islamic fundamentalist intolerance and can most likely be attributed to the power vacuum left in the wake of Saddam’s removal.
But, the were plenty of human rights abuses when Saddam was running things:
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm
September 29th, 2008 at 8:09 pmHere’s a couple from the link:
Saddam Hussein’s regime has carried out frequent summary executions, including:
4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in 1984;
September 29th, 2008 at 8:10 pm3,000 prisoners at the Mahjar prison from 1993-1998;
2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997-1999 in a “prison cleansing campaign;”
122 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000;
23 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in October 2001; and
At least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001.
And this:
Under Saddam’s regime many hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result of his actions, the vast majority of them Muslims. According to a 2001 Amnesty International report, “victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings, and electric shocks … some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage.”
Saddam has had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered. Allegations of prostitution are used to intimidate opponents of the regime and have been used by the regime to justify the barbaric beheading of women. There have been documented chemical attacks by the regime, from 1983 to 1988, resulting in some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.
September 29th, 2008 at 8:13 pmOf course, there’s more. check it out:
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm
September 29th, 2008 at 8:14 pmWhat Saddam did no longer matters–HE’S DEAD
There will be no safe place in Iraq anytime in the near future because these people are rarely at peace within their own religions and provincial areas. When we killed Saddam’s sons we should have pulled out of there but NOOO-we had to fubar the whole place until there was a power vacuum that could not be easily filled and pushed them back to medieval times. I think this unjustified war only has served to further drive home their religious ideology and hatred of others who are different.
Bush and his cronies are just as responsible for that poor man’s death as if they had held the guns that shot him, only WE THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA must somehow grow a pair and bring the killers to justice. Impeach the whole damn lot and bring them to a war crimes tribunal!!
September 29th, 2008 at 8:25 pm18 – You’re saying that’s worse that what we’ve done to the entire country, and the victims of our “enhanced interrogation techniques”??
Don’t ask us, ask someone who was born there and lives there.
5th – you’re spot-on, and thanks for forgiving my predilection for sophomoric humor.
September 29th, 2008 at 8:30 pmbackup : a little further, please
September 29th, 2008 at 8:31 pmgive backup some slack tonight, he’s still got burning eyes from when he gassed that nursery in the mosque in Dayton.
September 29th, 2008 at 8:40 pmbackup: 4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in 1984
And Don Rumseld was Reagan’s Special Envoy to the Middle East (November 1983–May 1984) and sold Hussein nerve gas and chemical weapon precursors which were used against the Iranians first and then against the Kurds, and Reagan did nothing and said nothing about it.
The US has imprisoned an estimated 14,000 at Abu Ghraib–men women and some children in the past 5 years.
Aboout half a dozen that we know of have been tortured to death there.
23 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in October 2001;
US Marines killed 24 people in Haditha of which 15 were women and children.
oops! looks like Commander in Chief’s Bush’s policies turned out quite as bad as Hussein’s–but in 1/3rd of the time! Of course Bush always said he was a “results” kind of guy. And he’s YOUR guy, backup, ALL yours.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:00 pmFirst I would like to say that I am a practicing Catholic. This message goes out to Christians, Moslems, Jews, Buddists, and Hindus. If you believe that your Gods hate homosexuals then I want no part of your salvation. It lets me believe that your Gods are narrowed minded and vain. Any God that created the whole universe would not quibble over such mundane subject as homosexuality. I’m straight and there is nothing wrong with it.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:01 pmImichael
Though we all only get to choose our respective government every 4 years (and it seems even then we don’t really get to choose it) you do have the choice as to which religious group you subscribe to and identify with.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:11 pmGiven the hypocritical stance of the Catholic Church regarding homosexuality at the very least, I hope at least you rail against your own Church in the hopes of changing it.
Yeah backup, things weren’t so hot under Saddam. But he’s gone now, and we’ve filled the vacuum by blowing up the Iraqis, shooting whole families at checkpoints, dropping DU on them, destroying their infrastructure, unleashing batshit insane fundamentalists on them, etc.
Enough with your “Yeah, but…” blithering.
September 29th, 2008 at 10:20 pmZooey. Don’t forget an opportunity for self determination and the right to vote.
Saddam is gone. His oppression is over. Whatever concerns the U.N had that he had WMD (16 resolutions) are gone. If you believe what Saddam said to his interrogator, he was going to reconstitute his weapons programs and pursue nuclear weapons. That threat isn’t there.
Lot of mistakes. Bad intel. No WMD found. But, it wasn’t a peaceful, non- violent utopia before we invaded. It is not one now. But, I suggest that the situation in Iraq, is better if the citizens have the right to self determination and access to forms of democracy, than life under a calm oppression powerless to resist the intermittent periods of torture, genocide, and human rights violations.
I don’t think you would stand for those kinds of conditions. I don’t think you should have to. We should all fight for the end of that type of oppression.
The progressive blind eye to it would be curious, if it weren’t so blatantly partisan.
September 29th, 2008 at 10:50 pmRead carefully, Captain.
The Bush administration KNEW there were no WMD. Understand? They would not ACCEPT intelligence that showed there were no WMD. Get it?
You’ve been told this countless times, but you keep falling back on your Pollyanna dreamworld.
Goodbye.
September 29th, 2008 at 11:05 pm>Saddam Hussein’s regime has carried out
>frequent summary executions, including:
Yes yes yes. Saddam was terrible, awful horrible. But i hate to tell you dude, but you CANT govern in that part of the world and be a nice, sweet, guy. In Saddams iraq, you play by the rules and dont get involved in politics, and chances are, you’d be ok. In Iraq now…you could be killed for any reason, at any time….I would assert that it was much easier to survive and have some semblance of freedom in sadam hussiens iraq than it is now. Say what you want about saddam, he wasnt executing people for wearing shorts, shaving thier beards, or not making their women wear burquas. this is the kind of stuff thats happenening these days, with all the freedumbs iraqis have.. if I had to choose between losing the right to vote and worrying about being executed for my fashion sense, id give up the right to vote before i gave up my ugly bahama shorts..
September 30th, 2008 at 1:23 amthe Lone Voice of Reason Says:
What Saddam did no longer matters–HE’S DEAD
September 29th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
______
What Saddam did matters as long as there are people who believe this:
dfletcher Says:
“Sure, I’ll admit that Saddam’s regime was not ideal. However, the more I hear, the less “evil” it actually seemed.”
September 29th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Would you describe his murderous acts as simply “not ideal?” Surely if his acts are merely “not ideal,” the same can be said of the gunning down of the gay man.
September 30th, 2008 at 1:26 am> Surely if his acts are merely “not ideal,”
>the same can be said of the gunning
> down of the gay man.
No, actually, I think saddam said he was “just fighting terrorism”…thats WAAAY different than just killing someone because their fashion sense is too good. You DO know that your hero bush has asserted he has the right to do everything saddam did, and more, in the name of fighting terror, right?
It amazes me that someone who supports a president who claims to have the power to be as brutal as possible is complaining about saddam. If bush did the things saddam did, you would probably be ok with it. You think an american president would never be this brutal if given the power?
Why? Because he won the political equivalent of american idol?
Give me a break..
September 30th, 2008 at 1:37 am______
Chocolate Jesus Says:
——————————————————————————–
> Surely if his acts are merely “not ideal,”
>the same can be said of the gunning
> down of the gay man.
No, actually, I think saddam said he was “just fighting terrorism”…thats WAAAY different than just killing someone because their fashion sense is too good. You DO know that your hero bush has asserted he has the right to do everything saddam did, and more, in the name of fighting terror, right?
It amazes me that someone who supports a president who claims to have the power to be as brutal as possible is complaining about saddam. If bush did the things saddam did, you would probably be ok with it. You think an american president would never be this brutal if given the power?
Why? Because he won the political equivalent of american idol?
Give me a break..
September 30th, 2008 at 1:37 am
______
Do you have any links to support your supposition that I supported Bush’s actions in Iraq? Anything, other than your usual mistaken opinion, that indicates that I believe he is anything close to being a hero? Didn’t think so. ;)
September 30th, 2008 at 1:49 ambackup Says:
I don’t think you would stand for those kinds of conditions. I don’t think you should have to. We should all fight for the end of that type of oppression.
The progressive blind eye to it would be curious, if it weren’t so blatantly partisan.
September 29th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
_______
It’s not a blind eye, and there’s nothing partisan about it. We recognize that the world is full of undemocratic governments and oppressive regimes that commit awful atrocities against their own people. However, we don’t believe that it is the responsibility of the United States to overthrow all of these regimes – especially since in many cases we’re the ones who installed and are supporting these regimes.
So the question is, why Iraq? Why not overthrow other oppressive regimes, such as Saudi Arabia or Uganda or Burma or China or Israel or Cuba?
We don’t question that Saddam was a bad guy. We know he’s a bad guy – that’s why the United States had him installed as leader of Iraq – we needed a strongman to counter Iranian influence in the region.
And Iraq is, by design, a difficult place to govern. It was never meant to be a cohesive state. Back when the British invented it in 1920s, Iraq was designed to be a failed state, full of warring factions too busy fighting each other to care how much oil the Royal Navy was pumping out of it. Saddam was the kind of leader Iraq needed, and the kind of leader we needed Iraq to have.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:16 am#34 – hussein toasterhead Says:
——————————–
So the question is, why Iraq? Why not overthrow other oppressive regimes, such as Saudi Arabia or Uganda or Burma or China or Israel or Cuba?
September 30th, 2008 at 8:16 am
It’s the blatantly partisan conservatives’ blind-eye that refuses to hold itself to the same standard to which they arbitrarily hold for anyone who doesn’t swallow their talking-points with no questions asked.
OK, that was my partisan slam for the day. ;-)
I find it amusing that those cheer-leaders for the war assume that anyone who doesn’t “ra! ra!” for the occupation of Iraq must automatically support Saddam Hussein as much as did Pres. Reagan in the 80’s.
That would be like saying “Since you refuse to support the US attacking North Lorea, then you myst support Kim Jung Il and his killing his own people to build nuclear weapons that could hit the US today!”
Saddam Hussein committed atrocities against his own people. There is no question of these facts.
Usama bin Laden was the alleged mastermind behind the deaths of 3,000 American lives in one day.
Which person was apparently more important for the US to get?
Back on topic: it’s interesting to note that there are no trolls that are saying the deaths of gays is the “will of (their) ‘g’od”! ;-)
September 30th, 2008 at 8:41 amOkay. If Bush knew, why didn’t the U.N.? What possessed them to the pass 16 resolutions? They didn’t seem as confident as you are in hindsight.
There was conflicting information about Iraq’s weapon’s capabilities and the threat he posed at the time.
Here’s some quotes from democrats that also didn’t ‘know’ there weren’t WMD either:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
*Disclaimer – many/most of the quotes were made in the context of opposing the war in Iraq or justifying Clinton’s actions in 1998. All the information in the link, if you read to the end.
Zooey. Read through the quotes are reconsider that Bush ‘knew’. You’ve been insulted so long, you’ve turned rhetoric into fact.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:17 ammy bad. insulted should have been insulated.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:18 ambackup Says:
Okay. If Bush knew, why didn’t the U.N.? What possessed them to the pass 16 resolutions? They didn’t seem as confident as you are in hindsight.
Maybe they did it because the US fed them false information as well. Or have you forgotten the Iraqi report that the US stole before it reached the UN, in order to edit it (ahem… I mean “translate it”) before it reached the UN.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:28 amLuis. I’m only trying to answer the charge that George Bush knew that Saddam had no WMD, but went to war in Iraq any way.
Consider all the concerns from Democrats about Saddam as a threat with WMD that predated the Bush Administration:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Don’t those comments belie the idea that it was Bush who generated the concern?
And the idea that the U.S. should promote regime change substituted for democracy. It wasn’t Bush’s idea. It has been around (with great support) since the Clinton administration:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
And even if you believe that all those concerns had been address by the time that Bush got on the scene. And that he just wanted gin them back up to get oil or settle an old score; how do you explain Hillary Clinton:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_KEWUU33Lg&feature=related
Here is a bright, ambitious woman. She was a senator. Her husband occupied the White House for eight years. They had only been out for a couple of years when Bush was making the case that Saddam was a threat. They new all the international players. Bill hired George Tenet. They knew the situation in Iraq. They knew Saddam was a threat. She would not bankroll her political future on the speculation of a cowboy from the opposition party. They believed, like many others, that Saddam was a threat that needed to be dealt with. Not because of what Bush said, but because it was the consensus of the time.
And again, if the world community was confident that Saddam posed no threat, what was the purpose of the 16 resolutions? Didn’t they have anything better to do, then the repeated attempts to address what today’s progressives what to characterize as a widely known, non-existent threat?
Your hindsight is very good, but your history is revisionist.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:54 amAll politics, etc. aside, this is so sad, just as the assasination of a woman police officer in Afghanistan and the murder of gay Matthew Shepard in Wyoming are so sad.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:28 amAnd again, if the world community was confident that Saddam posed no threat, what was the purpose of the 16 resolutions? Didn’t they have anything better to do, then the repeated attempts to address what today’s progressives what to characterize as a widely known, non-existent threat?
The 16 resolutions were made prior to 2002. By 2003, Hussein was letting UN inspectors into Iraq to examine the evidence of the disarmament. And then the US and UK claimed that the reports were incomplete and decided to invade. To this date, they haven’t released the report and we have to take their word for it.
So, to summarize: years prior to the war, Iraq had WMDs and therefore the Security Council made those resolutions. By 2003 the situation was different, according to the UN inspectors, and yet the US claimed that Iraq had to be invaded.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:42 amOh, and just to recap: Iraq had received 16 resolutions against them. Israel has received about 90 resolutions.
So, when will the US invade Israel to force them to comply with the UN resolutions, exactly?
September 30th, 2008 at 11:44 amLoraS. you’re right. The hope is that one day, people will accept the idea that each individual has equal rights to liberty. Not only that the idea is universally accepted, but eventually subconsciously ingrained.
Regardless of the race, gender, sexual orientation, etc; if you have a heart beat, you’re part of the club.
We still have a way to go.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:48 amLuis. you make some good points about Israel and the U.S. / U.K. report about the inspections. But, I contend that, while those points are valid – the evidence to the charge that Bush knew and went anyway, is not convincing in context of the evidence that he did not. Again, the evidence at the time.
If the evidence that you sight and other charges (downing street memo, etc) are or become substantial enough (in relation to the evidence that supports the ambiguity); Bush would/will be called to account.
The Democratically controlled congress that promised to address this injustice, has remained silent. If the accusations that Bush intentionally misled us into war (that he knew), and it were demonstrable, impeachment proceedings would have started long ago.
They haven’t, for one reason. The charges that Bush knew are inconclusive. To the contrary, most evidence leads to the conclusion that the consensus of the time was that Saddam had WMD and was a threat.
September 30th, 2008 at 12:00 pmAs horrific as the act was it may not be simply about the victim being a homosexual. If this was a militia assassination there may be more involved intent that eliminating an person considered undesirable in their culture. A helpless or weak victim may have been just part of the story. The other part of the story may be the fact that the militia committed the murder, in which case, bit would think, means this act displays the current state of lawlessness in the country, or the desire of some to impose Muslin law.
TP’s post conveniently omits the current legal status of homosexuals in Iraq. Was this omission a convenient cover to avoid appearing critical of Islam?
Does anyone know the current legal status, or even the legal status during Sadam’s reign, of a homosexual in Iraq? What about the legal status of an adulterer – male or female?
The victim of this murder could easily be one who the authorities will ignore if he – the victim – were guilty of a crime under Iraqi law. bit assumes that current law is heavily influence by Sharia law, and bit further assumes that under Sharia law homosexuality is illegal. The following from the wikipedia entry on Sharia Law indicates this is the case.
From wiki…
TP’s post makes it obvious that the criticism is because the victim was a homosexual. What does TP have to say about the list of crimes under Sharia law?
September 30th, 2008 at 12:35 pmbitblt. I think that some of the argument that Saddam was more secular (and preferable) to Islamic fundamentalism are valid. But, it overlooks the more prevalent oppressive atmosphere of pre-war Iraq, I believe for partisan reasons.
Islamic fundamentalism needs a reformation. Moderate Muslim voices need to condemn the fundamentalism, or continue to be held hostage by it.
The fundamentalism that lead to the assassination of Bashar is tragic. But, it’s not just tragic in Iraq, it’s tragic in the world of Islamic fundamentalism.
I agree with concerns over Bashar’s assassination, but let’s not limit our concerns to the policies in Iraq. Let’s condemn the ideology that fosters the behavior throughout Islam.
It’s a worldwide problem that needs a champion in ThinkProgress.
September 30th, 2008 at 1:40 pm