Yazidi Woman Awarded Not-So-Nobel Prize

Nadia Murad, an Iraqi Yazidi woman was selected to receive the Nobel Peace Prize earlier this month. It is instructive that:

1) Iraq has a population of 37,000,000 (37 million) people, all of whom have lived under U.S. occupation and war/ proxy-war since 2003. Off those millions, the Nobel committee selected a clear Islam-hater;

2) Of that population (37 million), 90% are Muslim. (Yazidis, by comparison, form 2% of the population.) Vast segments of the Muslim population have fought back against the U.S. occupation and war, often times in ways which demonstrated extraordinary courage and heroism. (Despite the pervasive labels and propaganda against fighters who oppose U.S. power, fighting a superpower with vastly great force of arms can only be described as heroic, and in any other era--e.g. the Warsaw Ghetto, the Algerian Civil War, etc.--would be viewed as an act of courage.)

Comparable to the Palestinian children throwing rocks at Israeli tanks, Iraqis (in the early days of the war) armed with only IEDs would launch themselves upon U.S. APCs and tanks--but only after the U.S. dropped 50,000 bombs and missiles on Baghdad in just over a month's period. And yet not one Muslim fighting occupation and oppression was deemed worthy of the Nobel committee's consideration;

3) Iraqi Muslim women suffered perhaps the most as a result of the U.S. occupation and war; and many of them have fought back against the terror enacted upon them by a Superpower terror. Again, not one of them was deemed worthy of the Nobel award.

Only Nadia Murad was deemed worthy. After she visited Israel (in a trip to witness the enacting of legislation protecting Yazidis, an incredible irony in a state which practices apartheid against Palestinians), she returned to Germany where she currently resides. Shortly after that, she was notified by the Nobel Committee of her award. In response, she said, "I am incredibly honored and humbled by their support and I share this award with all Yazidis with all the Iraqis, Kurds and all the minorities and all survivors of sexual violence around the world." Oddly, she uttered not one word against those who had occupied and steadily destroyed and destabilized her country since 1991.

If it were up to me, Abeer an-Janabi, the 14-year old Iraqi girl raped and burned to death by U.S. troops in 2006 (all of her family were killed by U.S. troops in the same incidentj) would have received the Nobel. Posthumously, if there is such a thing as a posthumous Nobel. THAT would have restored the dignity of the Nobel.

© 2018 Nadrat Siddique

Abeer Al-Janabi and the Case for Burka

Like the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the rape-murder of fourteen year-old Abeer al-Janabi by U.S. soldiers was labeled an aberration, excused under the now stale label of "work of a misguided few," by the military and their corporate media apologists. The obvious question is: How many "bad apples" can there possibly be?

Rumsfeld is the Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld (and other U.S. military leaders) opined that torture is okay. Rape is one type of torture. So, the syllogism holds that rape is okay. Why then is it surprising that that U.S. troops, under Rumsfeld's chain of command, might engage in rape-murders?

Military atrocities are almost always underreported. I would bet my car (one of my few assets) that hundreds if not thousands of similar attacks on Iraqi women have occurred. In my view, the attack was not an aberration, but wholly congruous with the savage way in which the war has targeted Iraqi civilians from start to finish. Time and again, U.S. soldiers themselves have attested to attacks on civilians.

Another angle to the perfidy visited on Abeer: Since this was not just a random attack, the soldiers had to see her before going after her specifically. So, she was not wearing a burka.

Burkas were rare in both Iraq and Afghanistan prior to imperialist invasion. In Bagdad under Saddam, next to nobody wore the burka. Now burkas are pervasive in Afghanistan, though not as common yet in Iraq.

In light of the U.S.-style liberation of Abeer Al-Janabi, the rants of how Islam/burka-wearing oppresses Muslim women rings hollow. Why wouldn't the Islamists want the women to wear the burka, given the circumstance of occupation by a party which abides by no international law, does not recognize the ICC (or any other body which would hold it accountable for anything), and insists on immunity for its troops? What nation in good conscience wouldn't want to protect the weakest segment of its population against war-time rape, rampant in just about every conflict? To me, what's odd is not that the Islamists want the women to wear the burka, but rather that many, even in the (Eurocentric) anti-war camp, with which I align myself, want Iraqi Muslim women to shed the hijab so they can look more like Barbie--never mind the unrestrained dogs running around their country.

The occupying power, which—under international law—bears responsibility for the welfare of Iraqi women, has shown itself incapable of guaranteeing their safety. And Bosnia should have taught women like Abeer not to wait around for Muslim men to defend them. Muslim women under occupation would do well to wear the burka, as well as to learn self-protection.