Iraqi Teens Stoned to Death for Wearing 'Emo' Clothes

[Pastellorama]

BAGHDAD -- At least 14 youths have been stoned to death in Baghdad in the past three weeks in what appears to be a campaign by Shiite militants against youths wearing Western-style "emo" clothes and haircuts, security and hospital sources say.


Militants in Shiite neighborhoods where the stonings have taken place circulated lists on Saturday naming more youths targeted to be killed if they do not change the way they dress.


The killings have taken place since Iraq's interior ministry drew attention to the "emo" subculture last month, labeling it "Satanism" and ordering a community police force to stamp it out.


"Emo" is a genre of punk rock music that originated in the United States in the 1980s. Fans are known for their distinctive dress, often including tight jeans, T-shirts with logos and distinctive long or spiky haircuts.

Full Article

 

[Ghetsis-Dennis]

Not sure what to say about this. On one hand, the internet community despise emo kids due to their obsessions with pain and suffering (see everyone's hate on Sasuke Uchiha), but on the other hand, what the Iraqis have done is kinda barbaric. We just want to them to shut up for once, not killing them.

 

[Pastellorama]

Well, "Emo" is not a term that was originally associated with 'pain and suffering'. As stated in the above article: "Emo" is a genre of punk rock music that originated in the United States in the 1980s. Fans are known for their distinctive dress, often including tight jeans, T-shirts with logos and distinctive long or spiky haircuts.

Most parents who lived through the 80's will tell you this even (my dad argues vehemently about it). These kids were doing nothing--they were just copying a fashion statement, so yes I agree it was barbaric to kill them. Especially when they are just kids, and stoning is so medieval it's just... wow, being bludgeoned to death with rocks. It's like involuntary dodgeball with baseballs....

 

[jda95]

Ugh, seriously? Killing kids because you don't like the clothes they wear? That's just senseless violence.

I find it somewhat ironic though that as Western governments are trying to ban the burqa, these Iraqi militants are lashing out against kids in Western fashion. Xenophobia at its finest.

 

[Bulletproof Scales]

Throwing rocks at emo kids has been a favorite past time of mine too.

 

[Almonds]

...but emo can be mean differently to everyone. Why did they have to be stoned to death for their clothes? And it doesn't even look emo to me.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

So let me get this straight. If I were to walk up to one of these people commiting these acts, wearing, say, my favorite pair of black jeans, a black T-shirt, and my good ol' black hoodie... they would stone me to death.

I don't see the connection there.

 

[Lugion]

THIS is why we need separation of church and state.

THIS is why religion should play no role in government.

 

[Nicoleta01]

THIS is why we need separation of church and state.

THIS is why religion should play no role in government.

Except in this case it wasn't the government under the influence of the religion, it was a bunch of nutjobs. Yes the minister did say negative things, but he did not order the killings.

 

[Lugion]

THIS is why we need separation of church and state.

THIS is why religion should play no role in government.

Except in this case it wasn't the government under the influence of the religion, it was a bunch of nutjobs. Yes the minister did say negative things, but he did not order the killings.

Oh, derp. I misunderstood the article.

But still. I wish people valued human life more.

 

[Pastellorama]

...but emo can be mean differently to everyone. Why did they have to be stoned to death for their clothes? And it doesn't even look emo to me.

They didn't have to be, but they were. That's the sadness of it. But... what doesn't look emo to you? There are no pictures in the article?/

 

[Cap'n Jack]

THIS is why we need separation of church and state.

THIS is why religion should play no role in government.

Except in this case it wasn't the government under the influence of the religion, it was a bunch of nutjobs. Yes the minister did say negative things, but he did not order the killings.

Oh, derp. I misunderstood the article.

But still. I wish people valued human life more.

Yeah, as far as I'm aware, the government seems to be taking a passive-aggresive stance on this. Which is also bad.

 

[DerMißingno]

Another brutal, disgusting result of theocracy.

THIS is why we need separation of church and state.

THIS is why religion should play no role in government.

Except in this case it wasn't the government under the influence of the religion, it was a bunch of nutjobs. Yes the minister did say negative things, but he did not order the killings.

"The killings have taken place since Iraq's interior ministry drew attention to the "emo" subculture last month, labeling it "Satanism" and ordering a community police force to stamp it out."

Police = government. Regardless of whether the federal government ordered the killings or not, it is implied that some were carried out and all were approved (that is, the perpetrators won't be brought to justice) by the police.

Also, the high clerics said they should be dealt with through "legal means." Well if the people who did this are knowingly not brought to justice, then guess what? It's legal, albeit de-facto.

Don't give this brutality a pass just because it wasn't ordered by the federal government. The problem runs far deeper than an independent group of nutjobs.

 

[Nicoleta01]

Another brutal, disgusting result of theocracy.

THIS is why we need separation of church and state.

THIS is why religion should play no role in government.

Except in this case it wasn't the government under the influence of the religion, it was a bunch of nutjobs. Yes the minister did say negative things, but he did not order the killings.

"The killings have taken place since Iraq's interior ministry drew attention to the "emo" subculture last month, labeling it "Satanism" and ordering a community police force to stamp it out."

Police = government. Regardless of whether the federal government ordered the killings or not, it is implied that some were carried out and all were approved (that is, the perpetrators won't be brought to justice) by the police.

Also, the high clerics said they should be dealt with through "legal means." Well if the people who did this are knowingly not brought to justice, then guess what? It's legal, albeit de-facto.

Don't give this brutality a pass just because it wasn't ordered by the federal government. The problem runs far deeper than an independent group of nutjobs.

I'm not giving it a pass, but "stamping it out" does not equal killing, and as far as we know this wasn't the work of the police killing these teenagers. Just because some clerics think the government should work it out doesn't mean that all of them said that (in fact, some have denounced the killings). The problems are deeper than some nutjobs, but with little information available on who exactly did this, we can't come to many conclusions. Those who advocate violence will continue to do so. Those who advocate peace will continue to fight the radicals in Iraq.

 

[DerMißingno]

@Nicoleta01 Like I said, it doesn't matter if the police actively participated or not, but the fact that they are not going to bring the people who did it to justice makes it de-facto legal.

Yes, theocracy is a problem.

 

[Robo-Floatzel]

@Nicoleta01
Yes, theocracy is a problem.

I agree with you, Theocracy is pretty much the new Communism, just take the Soviet Union, and put it in a desert filled with nothing but terrorists, murderers, and religious extremists, change the iconic hammer and sickle into a bunch of white scribbles on a green background, and you have the Middle East in a nutshell

It's easy to see how barbaric these, as I like to call them, "religious dictatorships" are, while it is true that Islam is part of their culture, they take it to unbelievable and unbearable extremes. Iran and Saudi Arabia are the WORST offenders

In Saudi Arabia's case, it's the only "absolute monarchy" left in the entire world (while the rest of the worlds monarchies, such as the United Kingdom/Great Britain and most of the European Union, have since become constitutional monarchies, republics, and democracies) With all of its abundant oil wells, reserves and riches, Saudi Arabia remains one of the world's most medieval "kingdoms", it is still illegal for women to drive in Saudi Arabia (in fact, women are pretty much treated like slaves in comparison to the men), and the fact that the country is ran by Sharia law, where there are no criminal rules, and if you make one wrong move, they cut your head off. This backwards country is an iconic symbol of "the old world." Yet, this fiefdom perches itself among western countries such as the United States and the European Union as if it is truly a modern marvel, and this country is considered an "ally" of the United States.

And then we have Iran, a bunch of nuclear warfare obsessed nutjobs who call the United States and Isreal "The Great Satan", and claims that it's production of nuclear weapons is for "peaceful purposes" when it is actually for absolute war against other nations that stand in it's way, it's practically the "North Korea" of the Middle East (and Iran is actually allies with North Korea believe it or not)

 

[League]

Ugh, seriously? Killing kids because you don't like the clothes they wear? That's just senseless violence.

I find it somewhat ironic though that as Western governments are trying to ban the burqa, these Iraqi militants are lashing out against kids in Western fashion. Xenophobia at its finest.

Well, these "kids" (young adults, many of them) weren't killed for merely violating some unwritten rules and codes of fashion--they were killed for dressing in a Western fashion. (Per a New York Times story that I can't link to [well, here you go, if you can log in and/or otherwise read this NYT article], dressing in such fashion is there often conflated with being gay.)

As well, Western governments per say aren't necessarily leading efforts to ban the burqa: some European governments (European countries generally being Western, but not all Western countries falling into the classification of 'European') are undertaking such efforts. However, these efforts I would not classify as strictly xenophobic (if such is what you were doing), for they are somewhat (if not mostly or completely) against the subjugation of women.

THIS is why we need separation of church and state.

THIS is why religion should play no role in government.

Well, for one, is there established and founded morality without religion? For another, does not religion, where it serves man for selfless reasons, also serve the interest of the state? At the very least, the state should try to play no role in internal and external religion, you should fairly say (at least, when "religion" poses no crisis to a state--the Western and Muslim world generally being in a war true against Islamic militancy and terror), and should not contend with the institutions of, at the very least, historic religious entities.

That said, I don't see why "THIS [emphasis both mine and yours] is why we need separation of church and state"--does really this prove the end-all be-all of the case against religious-governances? It should also be pointed out that these acts are supposed to be the acts of theocratic militants--it being possible to infer that the Iraqi government doesn't hold complete control over its own domain (meh, I foreshadow my comments to the below quoted).

@Nicoleta01
Yes, theocracy is a problem.

I agree with you, Theocracy is pretty much the new Communism, just take the Soviet Union, and put it in a desert filled with nothing but terrorists, murderers, and religious extremists, change the iconic hammer and sickle into a bunch of white scribbles on a green background, and you have the Middle East in a nutshell

It's easy to see how barbaric these, as I like to call them, "religious dictatorships" are, while it is true that Islam is part of their culture, they take it to unbelievable and unbearable extremes. Iran and Saudi Arabia are the WORST offenders

In Saudi Arabia's case, it's the only "absolute monarchy" left in the entire world (while the rest of the worlds monarchies, such as the United Kingdom/Great Britain and most of the European Union, have since become constitutional monarchies, republics, and democracies) With all of its abundant oil wells, reserves and riches, Saudi Arabia remains one of the world's most medieval "kingdoms", it is still illegal for women to drive in Saudi Arabia (in fact, women are pretty much treated like slaves in comparison to the men), and the fact that the country is ran by Sharia law, where there are no criminal rules, and if you make one wrong move, they cut your head off. This backwards country is an iconic symbol of "the old world." Yet, this fiefdom perches itself among western countries such as the United States and the European Union as if it is truly a modern marvel, and this country is considered an "ally" of the United States.

And then we have Iran, a bunch of nuclear warfare obsessed nutjobs who call the United States and Isreal "The Great Satan", and claims that it's production of nuclear weapons is for "peaceful purposes" when it is actually for absolute war against other nations that stand in it's way, it's practically the "North Korea" of the Middle East (and Iran is actually allies with North Korea believe it or not)

Well, "communism" was really a new kind of theocracy.

Now, while there is really much you say that should be countered, I think simply offering some perspective would suffice. Per the orignal article, these actions are supposedly being conducted by Shiite militants--who knows what you could infer from either word, Shiite or militants. It should be pointed out that the very existence of a militant supposes that a government doesn't have total control (over the general use of force) within its own domain. This isn't necessarily due to the influence of religion, religious groups, and religious militants alone, but also to the activity and interference of other states. (You did bring up various issues you had, as you saw them, with Iran...)

Per Saudi Arabia, well, it may be a monarchy (there are still yet others, by the way), but such kinda follows from the fact that it is Saudi Arabia--one could somewhat infer from the name the derivation from and relation to the House of Saud. (By the way, it should be noted that, when a poor country has a powerful head, all the friends and family of that head are similarly prosperous. An absolute leader having personal prosperity and such to give to his friends, and absolute rule--does really the leader of any "theocratic" government fare any better?) Meanwhile, the American-Saudi relationship is based upon 1) the importance of Saudi Arabia in the region, 2) the importance of Saudi Arabia as an oil producer (though we could probably become the globally leading oil producer in 5 or 10 years' time if we wanted to--as well, this is not necessarily due to American dependence on Saudi oil, but global dependence), 3) the relative openness and friendliness of Saudi Arabia to American objectives, etc. etc.--i.e. all, Saudi Arabia is not a relative ally of America or the West for any moral characteristic it may have.

Per Iran, well, there should be quite a distinction made about the leadership of Iran, and the people of Iran. In fact, you could make distinctions internal and various about the various forces that comprise the Iranian leadership and contend for it--I'm not completely educated about this, but I have caught sight of some of the nuance here in the subject.

~

Meh, this might be Iraq as we left it to be--a sense of promise drawing out some of the youthful and hopeful, so as they can be emboldened to actually dress in nontraditional fashion; and then our abandonment, leaving American and Iraqi gains to be eroded. (For the sake of scholarship I'll point out that I was informed by this piece, it being also where I got the NYT link.)

 

[Kalavinka]

Well, for one, is there established and founded morality without religion? For another, does not religion, where it serves man for selfless reasons, also serve the interest of the state? At the very least, the state should try to play no role in internal and external religion, you should fairly say (at least, when "religion" poses no crisis to a state--the Western and Muslim world generally being in a war true against Islamic militancy and terror), and should not contend with the institutions of, at the very least, historic religious entities.

You should do good things because you're a good person, not because some invisible sky magician said he'd punish you if you don't.

 

[Kalavinka]

Hyperion09 - I believe your statement is against the rules. I don't care if your an atheist or whatever, you have no right to make a comment like that about anyone's religion. Especially not in this particular forum. Yes, you should do good things because you're a good person. Leave it at that or say "not because you're blindly following religion". Don't insult my God or my religion, even if you don't believe in it.

Somehow I suspect you wouldn't have said anything if I was being flippant about a religion you don't follow. Of course I'm going to speak negatively about something I don't approve, and I have many reasons to be against the worship of a so-called "higher power", even more so against the Abrahamic religions because of the huge influence they have on the world.

 

[Kalavinka]

If stating a controversial opinion on a forum built for expressing such views was a rule-breaker, plenty of people would have been kicked out by now. I treat it with exactly the respect I think it deserves, and I'm not taking it back.

You can't insult someone's religion, not on this forum at least. This isn't the forum for religious debate.

The article in question involves an incident fueled by religion, you honestly can't expect it to not turn into a debate on religion at some point.