From "Islamic State’s ‘war crimes’ against Yazidi women documented," in the Washington Post.
Also:
Islamic State makes no secret about its enslavement of Yazidi women. In October, the group boasted about the practice in its English-language magazine, Dabiq.
“After capture, the Yazidi women and children were then divided according to the Shariah amongst the fighters of the Islamic State who participated in the Sinjar operations,” the magazine said, arguing that unlike Christians and Jews, Yazidis, as polytheists, could be treated as property. “The enslaved Yazidi families are now sold by the Islamic State soldiers.”
Posts
75 comments:
Really?!?!?....they drew names out of a hat to determine their victims. They told her to bathe, and she had poison.
This reads like some crazy blouse-ripper novel that my wife would buy. The only thing missing is that guy with long hair, and bulging biceps.
But, what contributions did the Clinton's get from those wagers of Jihad?
Of course, if Muslims do such, it is not a "War On Women"!
Great job, Barry!
To paraphrase Spengler: every once in a while, in the course of civilization, it sadly just becomes necessary to wipe out a rather large number of horrible people who believe crazy things. Marie Harf is wrong.
Virgil beat me to it.
Some folks just deserve two in the chest and one in the head.
'Pour encourager les autres'
This screams for a "slut walk" in cities across America! Cause "we care". Also, don't forget the hashtag campaign: #stoprapeculture.
Wait, what? This is Muslums doing this? Oh, never mind...
This war is lost. Their slow-bleed strategy is better than ours. We are not exceptional. We will by definition make things worse by taking any action, and you can thank George W. Bush and his voters for that.
C'mon Althouse! Get off your high horse! because
Crusades!
Thank God Our President Is Too Smart To Get Us Into A Quagmire.
How could this be? We've been dropping bombs on ISIS for months now. How could that have not solved the problem?
Some Of The Slaves Were Pregnant So Droning Them To Death Celebrates Abortion Rights.
Makes me wanna saddle up in an M2 with a 25mm chain gun and TOW II missiles to roll in there and kick some ass.
The Muslim Pope needs to put a stop to this.
I am Laslo.
Who are we to judge? They have a history, a tradition, and they are trying hard to live up to it. Maybe they are right? Maybe women should be treated as property owned by (Muslim) men. They have their culture, we have ours. Could we keep their culture over there? It doesn't work out that well when they bring it here, see: France, Sweden. etc.
Drawing names, like Roman decimation. One out of 10 punished as an example.
It keeps the rest of them in line.
We need to send the ones fighting the Muslims more guns and use B-52s to really show them what we can do.
Time for Linebacker III.
The Islamic State's English-language magazine, Dabiq, is really slick. You can read the issues here:
http://www.clarionproject.org/news/islamic-state-isis-isil-propaganda-magazine-dabiq
Evidently, when they're not using AK-47s and enslaved women, they're using Adobe InDesign.
Our Pope has just came out publicly on the Armenian genocide... Muslim genocide done to Christians.
His eyes have started to open.
ISIL was actually created by Hillary Clinton's War on Libya that loosed the chaos and the supply of weapons to arm the Syrian Rebels and to build up the Muslim Brotherhood take over in Egypt.
ISIL talks dismissingly of "the west" as this multi-culti everything-is-ok love fest of decadence.
However there is another west the one that burns down whole cities and kills wholesale when pushed enough. You could ask the residents of Homburg or Tokyo (or even Atlanta) if they weren't already ash.
al-Sisi in Egypt is one of the first to realize that if Islam does not solve this problem the "other west" is going to do it.
They're just following orders from UVA frats.
madAsHell said...
The only thing missing is that guy with long hair, and bulging biceps.
That's because I wouldn't sign the release form.
"We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve"
More where that came from. The Koran has some choice words for polytheists.
Since they are worse than slaves, and shirk is one of the greatest sins, the Yazidi woman should be happy with the upgrade.
It's funny the number of commentators who want to blame ISIS on everything except the initial, idiotic decision to invade Iraq.
It's funny the number of commentators who want to blame ISIS on everything except the initial, idiotic decision to invade Iraq.
Raped by ISIS. Raped by Sadaam.
What difference, at this point, does it make?
Allah be praised.
It's funny the number of commentators who want to blame ISIS on everything except the initial, idiotic decision to invade Iraq.
Yeah because Islamic fundamentalism, and Islamic terrorism did not exist before we invaded Iraq.
If you fools weren't so blinded with bloodlust you'd know Haliburton stages these stories in order to war profit.
The real problem is American coal heating our planet to unsustainable levels threatening not just mankind but all life on Earth. But that doesn't keep the eyeballs on the screens so there you have it.
"Yeah because Islamic fundamentalism, and Islamic terrorism did not exist before we invaded Iraq."
If radical jihadists were marauding around western Iraq before 2003, I must have missed it.
Look, Democrats will admit they don't have all the perfect answers to these impossibly tough problems, but surely we can all agree at least they don't cause mistakes like Vietnam or ISIS. All politics aside, those mistaken quagmires were and are directly the result of GOPers.
Repeat repeat repeat...
If radical jihadists were marauding around western Iraq before 2003, I must have missed it.
Not only that, you apparently missed almost 1500 years of History.
ISIL started in Syria, when did we invade Syria?
Having a psychotic dictator willing to keep the wogs in their place is no guarantee against having terrorism.
I blame the Koch Brothers.
Not really. I just thought I'd shoot it down before that idiot J. Farmer got to it.
Farmer: You missed it.
Were these women's resumes and CVs kept in binders?
TO THE JOURNALISMMOBILE!
"Look, Democrats will admit they don't have all the perfect answers to these impossibly tough problems, but surely we can all agree at least they don't cause mistakes like Vietnam or ISIS. All politics aside, those mistaken quagmires were and are directly the result of GOPers."
Actually, no.
Kennedy sent advisors to Vietnam and Johnson escalated the conflict. Nixon actually did what he campaigned on, pulling U.S. troops out.
As for ISIS, you seem to be assuming that if Saddam was still in power then the situation would not have arisen. Perhaps, but Obama has been the POTUS for several years now. Maybe, just maybe, he holds some responsibility for this also. After all, he has the power of "SMART DIPLOMACY!"
Reset button, ACTIVATE!
"Not only that, you apparently missed almost 1500 years of History."
I was not talking about Islamic violence, writ large. I was talking about ISIS as an organized, self-identified political entity.
"ISIL started in Syria, when did we invade Syria?
Having a psychotic dictator willing to keep the wogs in their place is no guarantee against having terrorism"
We didn't. As I have numerous times on this blog, the group has been able to take advantage of anarchic situations where state authority is absence or ineffective. It is worth remembering that in the early days of the Syrian civil war, many in the FP establishment were cheerleading for us to arm and train the rebels and attack Assad. They were able to spread from Syria into western Iraq thinks to the utterly ineffective, ineffectual, sectarian government in Baghdad that we are now so intent to prop up.
"I blame the Koch Brothers.
Not really. I just thought I'd shoot it down before that idiot J. Farmer got to it."
Grasping, really.
"Farmer: You missed it."
I don't think I did, but if you have a source for ISIS-like activity in Iraq pre-2003, I'd be happy to take a look at it.
"Perhaps, but Obama has been the POTUS for several years now. Maybe, just maybe, he holds some responsibility for this also. After all, he has the power of "SMART DIPLOMACY!""
Perhaps. But it is also worth remembering that an awful lot of what happens in the world has very little to do with the United States, and there is often very little the US can do about it. An overestimation of the power of the US is often a central error war hawks make.
Oh, and lets not forget the Gulf Of Tonkin incident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
Seriously, read a history book.
"Perhaps. But it is also worth remembering that an awful lot of what happens in the world has very little to do with the United States, and there is often very little the US can do about it."
True enough. Oh wait.
http://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/Barack-Obama-declares-Iraq-war-a-success/td-p/1379596
Capturing women has been that way, ever since God mass murdered the whole world.
He allowed only Noah, his three sons, and all their captured circumcised wives to survive.
Muhammed just added a bit of flair to the system, as he found that drowning people was too slow.
J. Farmer said...
I was not talking about Islamic violence, writ large. I was talking about ISIS as an organized, self-identified political entity.
"ISIL started in Syria, when did we invade Syria?
...but if you have a source for ISIS-like activity in Iraq pre-2003, I'd be happy to take a look at it.
4/16/15, 11:19 AM
As Farmer points out, you (we) are all wrong on this one. Its not like [for instance] SEIU violence can be considered union thuggery! Oh, wait...
I was not talking about Islamic violence, writ large. I was talking about ISIS as an organized, self-identified political entity
Then why did you write:
If radical jihadists were marauding around western Iraq before 2003, I must have missed it.
Just for the record, radical jihadists have dominated Islam literally since it was founded.
I suggest you begin your remedial research with the conquests of Medina and Mecca, and then follow the last 1500 years of Islamic history.
But it is also worth remembering that an awful lot of what happens in the world has very little to do with the United States,
Now who was just trying to blame the creation of ISIS on the United States?
Wait..don't tell me..it'll come to me......
Farmer: better put some ice on that.
Actually, no.
I believe NotquiteunBuckley was being sarcastic....
Here's the problem with these idiotic naive shit-for-brains liberals. We know that by 2003, AlQaeda, including it's splinters and franchises, was in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Egypt, And Saudi Arabia. They were in Libya, Sudan, Chad, Ethiopia and Somalia. They were in Yemen, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and New York City, Boston and Hollywood, Florida. They were in Thailand and the Philippines. They were in Indonesia and Even Bali.
They were having running gunfights in the streets of Riyadh and trying to kill the royal family and put their heads on pikes. They were operating against every secular regime in the region that wouldn't support them.., except, wonder of wonders, Saddam Hussein.
Here's a clue: the 9/11 commission found "all kinds of ties, all kinds of connections," with Saddam's regime. But ignorant libtards sweep that down the memory hole and pretend it didn't happen.
But somehow, even with Abu Nidal turning up in a Bagdad hotel, and even with Ansar Al Islam operating openly against the Kurds in brigade strength prior to 2003, these dense, uninformed little half wits still cling desperately to their received wisdom that there were no terrorists in Iraq "None!!" Before we got there in 2003.
Premature evacuation has consequences, but it is consistent with the Party and Obama's pro-choice policies.
That said, the expansion of wars and overseas' conflicts is clearly a wicked problem that cannot be resolved through controlled military interventions. The human rights-approved solution is abortion. Abort the unwanted or inconvenient human lives. Send the abortion industrial complex into combat. Millions of human lives murdered, tortured, and raped annually is undeniable proof of their effectiveness to commit collateral damage in unprecedented numbers.
Lot of fuckin' high-horsing these days, Americans. Did you forget about Jim Crow?
Once these fellas get good jobs I expect all this nonsense to simmer down.
I think a lot of these rape news stories are overblown. I went to a sex toy shop in Berkeley, and every plastic penis in there was bigger than my little urinator.
It could be these women are raping themselves and just suppressing it when confronted by a reporter with an agenda to send more young conscripts to their deaths in Iraq.
@Todd:
"As Farmer points out, you (we) are all wrong on this one. Its not like [for instance] SEIU violence can be considered union thuggery! Oh, wait..."
That has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I am perfectly happy to concede that ISIS's violence and actions are based in their reading of Islam, and that it is religiously-motivated terror. No argument from here.
@Gahrie:
"Now who was just trying to blame the creation of ISIS on the United States?
Wait..don't tell me..it'll come to me......"
Correct. An "awful lot" is not the same thing as everything. And I did not "blame" the United States; I blamed the decision to attack the Hussein regime and create a power vacuum in Iraq.
@Jason:
"Farmer: better put some ice on that."
If you mean my gin and tonic, then yes, please. Otherwise, not necessary.
"But somehow, even with Abu Nidal turning up in a Bagdad hotel, and even with Ansar Al Islam operating openly against the Kurds in brigade strength prior to 2003, these dense, uninformed little half wits still cling desperately to their received wisdom that there were no terrorists in Iraq "None!!" Before we got there in 2003."
Well, I am sorry that "shit-for-brain liberals," "ignorant libtards," and "dense, uninformed little half wits" are causing you so much consternation. Perhaps you should go find one and have this argument. As it stands, it has nothing to do with what anybody was talking about. The topic at hand is the presence of ISIS. Yes, the Hussein regime cooperated with terrorist organizations. Not in doubt or denial. However, we are talking about a terrorist army that is in open revolt against the central government in Baghdad.
Jason, why are you so sure we can accomplish against ISIS what we have been utterly incapable of doing against the Taliban despite 14 years of continuous military occupation?
But what about the microaggessions here! Isn't that more important than real women getting raped and murdered over there?
/sarc
J. Farmer said...
@Todd:
"As Farmer points out, you (we) are all wrong on this one. Its not like [for instance] SEIU violence can be considered union thuggery! Oh, wait..."
That has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I am perfectly happy to concede that ISIS's violence and actions are based in their reading of Islam, and that it is religiously-motivated terror. No argument from here.
4/16/15, 12:46 PM
That is nice to hear but I was poking at your larger point that ISIS/ISIL/{whatevertheyarecalledtoday} was not there until we created them there. That is crap. They change group names like we change our underwear. They band together, split up, reform new groups, change partners, etc. They are Islamic terrorists and specifically what they call themselves at any one time is irrelevant. Pointing at one group that is currently going by one name and saying "look we did that" is the perfect example of not seeing the forest for the trees.
It's not the depth, breadth, or intensity of your victimization that counts, but who is doing the oppressing. Date rape is a far greater atrocity than this because it is perpetrated by white, bourgeoise men.
Were the predations of Boko Haram or Charles Taylor worse than apartheid? Can you name any celebrity who forcefully spoke out against Charles Taylor?
The politically motivated forced starvations in the USSR happened before Hitler broke his first window. According to Timothy Snyder's book Bloodlands, there were only two published reports in the western press on these atrocities.
"I believe NotquiteunBuckley was being sarcastic...."
If so then I apologize. We currently live in an era where people try to rewrite history to make Lincoln a Democrat and claim abolition as a Democrat project. And, in fact, it is not unusual to come upon people who hold the Republican party (and Nixon) to blame for Vietnam. After all, the Democrats opposed it (once Nixon was elected.)
According to Jung Chan, Mao was responsible for the early death of seventy million Chinese. Can you name one?
@Todd:
"That is nice to hear but I was poking at your larger point that ISIS/ISIL/{whatevertheyarecalledtoday} was not there until we created them there."
That was not my argument. I have previously argued that ISIS was there before Obama ever took office. My point was not that the Iraq War created ISIS, per se. But the Iraq War created the conditions within Iraq that has allowed ISIS to thrive in that country. I have previously remarked that Obama's idiotic war in Libya has had similar consequences. The war did not necessarily create the jihadists that are operating within Libya, but it did create the conditions in which they were able to thrive.
The an Suge Knight ran over doesn't want to testify against him in court. Can you name one celebrity who is willing to speak truth to power and condemn Suge Knight publicly?
I just want to know how Bush was to blame for the many invasions of Europe by Muslim extremists over the last 1500 years.
But the Iraq War created the conditions within Iraq that has allowed ISIS to thrive in that country
Then why did it take the civil war in Syria for them to appear?
There's about four thousand years of recorded history in the Middle East? Can you name a time when humble men there weren't treated poorly and their women treated worse?
"I just want to know how Bush was to blame for the many invasions of Europe by Muslim extremists over the last 1500 years."
He wasn't. But he was responsible for the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in 2003 and all of its disastrous consequences. Obama is responsible for going to war with Libya, the drone campaign, and support for the pointless Saudi war in Yemen and all of the disastrous consequences that follow from these actions. I have no problem giving a big thumbs down to both presidents and both parties.
"Then why did it take the civil war in Syria for them to appear?"
For the exact reason they were able to gain momentum in Iraq and, to a lesser extend, Libya. When state power collapses and a power vacuum ensues, it is not unusual for armed gangs to move in and exploit those conditions. ISIS happens to be a particularly brutish example. But of course, there have been hundreds of thousands of deaths and systemic rape throughout the conflicts of central Africa, as various tribal groups grapple for state power.
J. Farmer said...
For the exact reason they were able to gain momentum in Iraq and, to a lesser extend, Libya. When state power collapses and a power vacuum ensues, it is not unusual for armed gangs to move in and exploit those conditions. ISIS happens to be a particularly brutish example. But of course, there have been hundreds of thousands of deaths and systemic rape throughout the conflicts of central Africa, as various tribal groups grapple for state power.
4/16/15, 1:29 PM
I can not speak to that for if it were not that incident, it would likely have been another. They were already there, already primed and just awaiting opportunities. I do know that we stood around far too long and allowed Saddam to do incredibly inhuman things to far, far too many people. He might not specifically have been "our" problem but do you just stand around watching someone beat their wife in public? No, you step in and stop it. Shit, he was feeding people into wood-chippers. He had entire rape rooms setup. What the hell?!?
But the Iraq War created the conditions within Iraq that has allowed ISIS to thrive in that country,
He never would have hit her, if she had not made a big deal about the lipstick on his collar.
If we had never gone into Iraq, people like Farmer would be attacking Bush for allowing Saddam's aggression against his neighbors to go unpunished.
@Todd:
" He might not specifically have been 'our' problem but do you just stand around watching someone beat their wife in public? No, you step in and stop it."
I tend to agree with conservatives that a policy should be judged by its likely outcomes and not by its intent. Having a well-intended policy is rather meaningless if the effects of that policy are destructive or counterproductive. See 1960s cash welfare programs as a popular example.
So, seeing as the likely outcome of the Iraq War was to ignite a sunni-shia civil war, create a Shia-dominated regime in Baghdad aligned with Iran, and generally contribute to instability in a major, geostrategically important region of the world, then I would say that was a bad policy. When I look at Iraq today, I do not see how we accomplished anything remotely worth 4500 US lives and a trillion dollars in taxpayer money. By the way, the US was not exactly standing by. We had been bombing Iraq for a decade prior to 2003 to enforce a no-fly zone and had been sanctioning the country. And prior to the Kuwait invasion, we had been tacit supporters of Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War.
@Gahrie:
"If we had never gone into Iraq, people like Farmer would be attacking Bush for allowing Saddam's aggression against his neighbors to go unpunished."
Do me a favor. Concern yourself with the arguments I actually make, not arguments that you think "people like [me] would be" making. I criticized the dumb wars Bush fought, and I criticize the dumb wars Obama fights. My position remains consistent regardless of what letter the occupant of the White House puts next to his name.
I criticized the dumb wars Bush fought, and I criticize the dumb wars Obama fights
So if Saddam occupied Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, you'd have no problem?
Sure gas would be $10 a gallon, and hundreds of people would be fed into wood chippers every week, but what the hell at least we didn't invade Iraq.
Just think how much better the world would be today if we had left the Germans and Japanese alone in the 1940s.
@Gahrie:
"So if Saddam occupied Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, you'd have no problem?"
That's now what I said at all, and if Hussein was invading and/or occupying countries in 2002 or early 2003, that'd be news to me. I am assuming you are referring to the first Gulf War. Leaving aside the fact that I was a child when it occurred, I would have supported it. It had broad international support, and the US had clear, achievable military goals. And the war was conducted brilliantly, the last such war we conducted since the absurd military adventurism that has come to define the post-Cold War era.
"Just think how much better the world would be today if we had left the Germans and Japanese alone in the 1940s."
You know, hawks really should start asking themselves why they incessantly need to stretch back 70 years for their metaphors.
Farmer, you have some good points and I certainly wish Iraq had been handled better. I also believe that we were on our way to "much better" when Obama pulled the plug.
I also don't think as humans, we should stand around watching people be tortured and slaughtered. We are better than that. I think should have intervened in Rwanda and to our shame we did nothing. We should not have to be the world's policeman but with the UN as ineffective and corrupt as it is, there is little choice if you have any humanity in you. Turning your back and being an isolationist definitely has appeal. I think though as the greatest nation on earth, we have the responsibility to do better, to be better than that.
I also think that we either do it or we don't. Smart bombing homes from afar so we don't get our hands dirty is a spineless invasion. Either do or don't do. Either commit or don't commit. For 6 years now we have been like a schizophrenic attacking our enemies and then throwing them parties. Chatting with our friends and then sucker punching them. It just makes us look loony and confuses our allies. We really need to get our shit together and come up with a articulable, consistent foreign policy that can be explained so the entire world knows what to expect.
No, it wasn't the invasion of Iraq that created the conditions that allowed ISIS to thrive in the northern sector. There is an additional necessary precondition for that to happen, and it is easily pinpointed:
Obama's decision to withdraw prematurely and against the advice of his military experts - and the previous administration - who warned that something precisely like this would be the result.
You don't get to blame ISIS on Bush when it was the military under Bush who drove them from the country, and you don't get to absolve Obama of the blame when Obama reversed the Bush policy and withdrew, leaving tons of vehicles, weaponry and materiel for ISIS to capture and use against our Iraqi allies.
Also, don't get too hyped up about a Shia dominated Iraq aligning itself with Iran. Yes, anything like a Democratic Iraq is going to be Shia-dominated. They represent 80-85 percent of the population. If you want democracy in Iraq it must be Shia. But the only people Arabs hate more than each other are the Persians.
They'll trade a few clerics back and forth. But they distrust and despise each other.
However, Obama's foolishness and fecklessness and utter drooling incompetence has pushed them together out of necessity. The Iraqi government cannot fend off ISIS without outside support. Their own institutions are subject to infiltration. The Arabic-sunni dialect-speaking ISIS types can pass for Shia, with a bit of care. They can't pass for Iranians.
When Obama shamefully abandoned them, the Iranians were only too happy to help. It didn't have to be that way, but Obama managed to piss away a lot of hard-won influence and credibility.
@Todd:
"I also believe that we were on our way to 'much better' when Obama pulled the plug."
I simply disagree with this. I think the success of the surge of the COIN strategy have been massively overhyped, and much of the decrease in violence that occurred in the western provinces was a result of the Anbar Awakening. The collapse of that movement is another reason ISIS has been able to spread.
But again, I return the question to you and to Jason. Why are you so convinced that we can accomplish against ISIS what we have been unable to accomplish against the Taliban? Obama surged troops there and implemented the Petraeus strategy, and it was a total failure.
You know, hawks really should start asking themselves why they incessantly need to stretch back 70 years for their metaphors.
Maybe because it is the last war you doves are willing to admit was necessary?
Laslo said, "The Muslim Pope needs to put a stop to this."
The muslim pope is Mohammad, and he did the same thing.
Correct me if wrong, but I thought many Muslims considered Christians to be polytheists since we worship the Trinity, Father Son, and Holy Spirit
Stupid to compare AfPak with Iraq or anyplace else. AfPak is impossible. Bush correctly went in there small ball running a Spec Ops Olympics. Leveraged native troops. Kept it pretty much the lid on. Obama is Mr. Oh This Is The Good/Real War and is the one who Vietnam'd it. Iraq is very different. Before you ask me how, please think about it.
Post a Comment