Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Iraqi Women Raped Into Suicide Jihad

I'm interested to see how the left's peace advocates will spin this: Australia's Herald Sun reports that Samira Jassam, known as "the mother of the believers," orchestrated the rape and forced recruitment of 81 women into suicide martyrdom operations in Iraq:

A WOMAN suspected of recruiting more than 80 female suicide bombers has confessed to organising their rapes so she could later convince them that martyrdom was the only way to escape the shame.
John at Powerline responds: "Our enemies can sink to depths of depravity that most of us would be hard-pressed even to imagine ... This is the kind of thing that makes me skeptical that the solution to the problem of Islamic terrorism is diplomacy."

But check out Warner Todd Huston at

This is the sort of corruption that liberals and Barack Obama do not understand. In order to further “Jihad” these people are willing not only to kill themselves and others, but to rape even their own women in order to destroy their mental balance so that they are more easily brainwashed to become suicide bombers.

What sort of religion encourages the rape and death of its own children?

Democrats cannot conceive of this sort of corruption of the soul employed for religious control and power over a people. So, instead of facing reality, they bury their heads in the sand and pretend that the enemy is really “just like us,” after all.
No lefties are commenting at Memeorandum, but Libby Spencer applauds such innovations, so I'll keep my eyes open.


shoprat said...

When she is in for a rude awakening when she stands before God and discovers just what He really is all about.

Anonymous said...

Of course this woman's actions are depraved. But, what is your point? Aren't you the one of the people saying the "surge" left everything wonderful in Iraq? Are you in favor of keeping 150,000 troops there until you can no longer find an incident like this to get on your high horse about?

You better stick to teaching. I hope you're better at that than you are at building strawmen.

Anonymous said...

DLB: The surge worked. It cut down on violence. Period.

On another note, this simple anecdote is an example of why "diplomacy" is not going to solve the remaining problems with Muslim fundamentalists in the Middle East.

Two separate issues.

Your attempt to link the second and the first by pretending there is some conflict in recognizing both is pretty bad. I think you prematurely decide to criticize whatever DD writes and that leaves you with some weak criticisms at times, as here.

Anonymous said...

This shows to what extent those crazy Muslims would go to in order to harm others. The religion of peace once again shows its ugly face.

I wonder if the NOW gang will express shock and dismay over this, or since they're both against America, maybe it's OK for them.

Anonymous said...

I think you prematurely decide to criticize whatever DD writes and that leaves you with some weak criticisms at times, as here.

Since my blog is unexplicably linked to in this post, I feel a certain right to respond to it. In particular, since there seems to be some insinuation that I would actually favor the actions taken by this woman.

this simple anecdote is an example of why "diplomacy" is not going to solve the remaining problems with Muslim fundamentalists in the Middle East.

The group that this woman belonged to seems to be a Sunni group which is fighting against the Shia controlled government. Since the Sunni and Shia have been fighting for 1500+ years, pray tell what is going to solve the remaining problems.

Anonymous said...

"Since my blog is unexplicably linked to in this post, I feel a certain right to respond to it.'

And a right you most certainly have. Still weak, though.

As for the rest of your comment... You criticized DD insinuating that his support for the surge was somehow in conflict with his general statement that liberal ideas of diplomacy probably won't solve this. You obviously agree when you state that their problems have been going on for 1500+ years. Glad you came around.

Anonymous said...

DD, you need a widget that informs commenters of follow-up comments via email :) I don't know if blogger offers that, but I can't always remember every comment I've left, especially on a blog that is very regularly updated.

Donna B. said...

Because I am a naive Pollyanna, I cannot grasp the idea that anyone - male or female - should be coerced into giving their life for any ideology, political or religious.

It's the force I have a problem with. I think I will always have a problem with force, whether directed toward the physically weaker female sex or toward the indoctrination of either sex.

AmPowerBlog said...

PrivatePigg: I tried a comment widget and didn't like it. If you know if any, send me the links in an e-mail.

I spent twenty minutes sorting throught posts the other night to find some old comments, so I know what you're saying.

Anonymous said...

Should I bother asking again?

First, I didn't say whether I thought diplomacy was going to help solve their problems or not because I don't know and I admit that.

OTOH, you say definitively that diplomacy is not going to solve their conflict. And I asked, "what is?" Is the US military going to stay in Iraq until there are no longer incidents like the on cited in this posting?

The lives of people in countries we have occupied and brutalized in the past are approaching or have reached some degree of normalcy today. This include the Phillipines, Vietnam and, even Iran. This is, possibly, because we no longer have any influence in propping up authoritarian leaders of their countries.

It is likely that if we left the Iraqis to their own devices they would eventually establish a government that is suitable for governing Iraq. Our mission there, in as much as one was ever defined, is over. We can't stay and police a country the size of California forever.

Anonymous said...

We are involved in a three way civil war. My solution is the Aiken one, declare victory and leave. What's yours, PP?

Anonymous said...

Your site is very impressive. I can't believe how prodigious this solo blog is. Thanks for your good work.

Anonymous said...

Iran? They were better off under the Shah.

Funny you should mention Vietnam, but not South Korea. You seem to be advocating the Vietnam strategy now, when obviously the Korea strategy would be much better.

We left Vietnam without finishing the job (because of arguments like yours, that the short-term losses are not worth the long-term gains). Vietnam became a communist hellhole and one of the poorest nations on Earth.

In Korea, long story short, after fighting the commies we stayed and prevented the communists from being able to overrun the rest of the peninsula. We kept bases there for years and years (until recently?). In stark contrast to Vietnam, S. Korea became one of the top economies in the world and the people have one of the highest standards of living in the world.

I support staying in Iraq, even in a limited capacity, for as long as it takes to guarantee the Iraqis are safe from external threats and to guarantee the Iraqis have a fully functioning democracy / political system.

Anonymous said...

it's true that iraqi women are raped , but such crimes are commited by the american troops because violence and terrorism are the only culture that american society know