Killing a rape victim in order to preserve one's honor may sound backward to you -- as backward, say, as invading a country where there are no terrorists and then claiming you've got to stay and keep fighting because the terrorists now see the place as a central front in their war with you. Welcome to Iraq!

As we've seen with other Manjoo posts, this guy can't make a definitive statement without crawling back up the ass of his PC masters:

Killing rape victims to perserve family honor is savage, criminal and backwards - you can feel all right staking that cliam - even if brown people are, in this case, the savages (much like the Germans were savages for thier treatment of Jews and others during WWII) - America's invasion of Iraq was hardly backwards: stupid maybe, bad judgement for sure - perhaps criminal, but backwards? it's okay, Manjoo, you're a good leftist - we already know you hate America, but by your own twisted logic, if Iraq had WMDs and harbored terrorists, then you'd be for the invasion? Then it would be forward thinking? I was againt the invasion because, assuming true all they said about Iraq, I never considered them a threat to America - or even American interests... So I can call a savage a savage and not have to qualify with cheapshot anti-Americanism...

to hear that report. It actually reminded me how I felt to watch 9-11 on T.V., just disgust and thinking this is who we are, we wonderful apes and this is what humans decide to do, given the chance to do this or do something else. What medievel assholes that people can be.

Hooray for soul-destroying, capitalist western civilization was my next thought. (Unless we suceed in making the planet uninhabitable, that is)

The thing I wondered about in listening to this was, was one of the reasons Iraqis were non-sorry to see Saddam go was because he and vicious secret police state were a barrier to tribalism in all its forms, this being one of them? At least before the 1991 war, he was trying transform his society by terror into whatever the crap he was going for. Despots are always jealous, perhaps he wanted to be the only one in the country committing nonsensical murders to frighten people in line.

If Iraq does have at least one democratic election, will this be the kind of society the majority votes for?

Speaking of blaming the victim... did you miss this story, which finally appeared in Broadsheet on Wednesday?

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/index.html?blog=/mwt/broadsheet/2005/12/07/rape_victim_found_guilty/index.html

I would encourage others who were outraged and saddened by the story of Fatima's murder to visit http://www.equalityiniraq.com/english.htm, the website for The Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq.

Whether or not we agree with the reasons for the war, we have invaded and occupied a country and have the obligation to make sure we leave it better than we found it for ALL of the citizens of Iraq. I hope that Fatima's death will not be in vain and that this story will focus attention on the plight of women in Iraq.

I generally avoid Broadsheet because I think it's out of place at the Salon I've known and supported for years. It seems like a clique-y self absorbed idea that must have been born of some camaraderie among Salon employees, but wouldn't seem to be in response to a demand or desire among the actual readers of Salon. I've intentionally let my subscription lapse in the past month, and when I do check back in via daypass, I actually avoid the Broadsheet segment (guessing that Salon probably counts clicks as reader approval).

Today the "fashion industry glass ceiling" caused me to click, since it pertains to my work. Then when I arrived I found this story that dearly needs to be included in Salon's regular (or some would say, non-ghettoized) content.

What you doing here? Shouldn't you be reading Fox News. And you know, since Bush has not condemmed Honor Killings, he is obviously for them.

As a long time Salon subscriber, let me say I do like Broadsheet. I think it was a good addition.

Jeffrey, Jeffrey, Jeffrey, thanks for your lovely post. So you asked a question:

...but by your own twisted logic, if Iraq had WMDs and harbored terrorists, then you'd be for the invasion? Then it would be forward thinking? I was againt the invasion because, assuming true all they said about Iraq, I never considered them a threat to America - or even American interests... So I can call a savage a savage and not have to qualify with cheapshot anti-Americanism...

The answer is Yes. Obviously: If Iraq had WMDs and harbored terrorists -- two conditions which would go far toward showing it was a threat -- of course I'd have been for the invasion. And actually it was the suspicion that the first of these conditions (WMD) was true that I did pretty much support the Iraq war, or at least the idea of invading Iraq. How it was done -- rather not well -- was and is a concern of mine. But in principle I wasn't opposed.

But Jeffrey, I have to ask you something. Are you really saying that even if you knew that it were true beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iraq had bad weapons and terrorists, you'd have been O.K. with letting it be? And you would be O.K. with it only because of a personal belief that it wasn't going to threaten us? How would you come to that conclusion?

Seriously, I don't see how you could consider a country with WMDs and terrorists to be non-threatening. Isn't that pretty much the definition of threatening? I'd really like to hear more about your system of logic, especially since you hold yourself up as a paragon of patriotism, and according to you I've got a lot to learn about that.

Since the discussion would obviously not be germane to this post, why don't you e-mail your response to me? Let's have it out there, shall we? farhad@salon.com