Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Shaima Alawadi dies: Iraqi woman found severely beaten with a tire-iron, note left; "go back to your country"

Posted 6 years ago on March 25, 2012, 8:27 a.m. EST by jph (2652)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The right-wing of the corporatist one-party system, have been pushing wars and racist hate for far too long, it is spilling over into peoples lives.

"Shaima Alawadi, an Iraqi woman living in Southern California who was found severely beaten next to a threatening note saying "go back to your country," died on Saturday.

Hanif Mohebi, the director of the San Diego chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said he met with Shaima Alawadi's family members in the morning and was told that she was taken off life support around 3 p.m.

"The family is in shock at the moment. They're still trying to deal with what happened," Mohebi said.

Alawadi, a 32-year-old mother of five, had been hospitalized since her 17-year-old daughter found her unconscious Wednesday in the family's house in El Cajon, police Lt. Steve Shakowski said.

The daughter, Fatima Al Himidi, told KUSI-TV her mother had been beaten on the head repeatedly with a tire iron, and that the note said "go back to your country, you terrorist.""

Quoted from; http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/03/24/31785/shaima-alawadi-dies-iraqi-woman-beaten-california/

We really do need to tone down there racist warmongering hate-spreading tools of the bankers, as letting them continue to feed peoples egos with hatred, will invariably lead to more of the 'true-believers' to shoot, beat, and kill those they are taught to despise by their hate radio/tv/web networks.



Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

Now take the agony that family is going through and multiply it a few thousand times in Iraq and Afghanistan, and you will understand why our continued occupation over there is doing more harm than good in curbing terrorism...and in the end our presence over there is not really about that. Is it?

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

a few hundred thousand times actually. Imagine if some 'invading power' was occupying America, and had already killed several hundred thousand of our citizens? America's military does not 'defend the homeland' by invading foreign counties and oppressing them for decades. How have they sold this? Ah, yes it all comes back to that great lie of 9/11. Something we should be able to talk about here (WT7!), but apparently it is taboo.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 6 years ago

An article that speaks to this heinous hate crime and its contributory factors - "great lie" et al :

fiat pax ...

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

And then imagine if it were on of your loved ones who were flippantly labeled the victims of collateral damage. I agree that 9/11 served as a great launching pad for the sinister forces of imperialism. OWS is up against enormous odds, as I am sure you will agree. I think it is best at this point that we take baby steps in the right direction...and at some point all this will come out.


[-] 2 points by Mowat (164) 6 years ago

"Go back to your country" where the same evil-war-machine would kill you anyway!

What punishment has God hidden for G. W. Bush and his gang?

Infinite residence at Hellfire would be appropriate!

[-] 1 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 6 years ago

How is this "right wing".

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

I hear the right wing in the media vilifying, many groups that they do not hold much lov for. I see the right wing push for war, bigger war, and new wars,. they do have lots of lov for wars. Wars require making an entire people into monsters, the us vs them mentality. I recall the right-wing 'leaders' preaching for wars and hatred of the monsters that they create through the process of vilification of their intended targets. I have heard right-wing media spread much fear about the invading immigrates coming to take our jobs, and mix races with their daughters.

All that type of crap has triggered some brain-damaged fearful hate-filled deviant to beat a woman in the head with a tire-iron. Yes, the right-wing is all about 'personal-responsibility' because they do not exhibit any collective responsibility.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

What a disgrace. My sympathy goes out to this woman's family and all the other people who are victims of hate crimes in our country. It's a sad day in America to see things happen like this.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Not sure what you mean by "one party system" if you mean a Prius and a Hummer are pretty much the same because they both got four tires and a motor, them I disagree, if you mean we have to take our government back from the bigots who have sized control then I agree, now I think that starts by throwing one party out and busting the other into afterwards.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

I mean that Rep. or Dem. we see the same results, more profits for the few, less freedom for the many, endless wars for resources causing uncounted horror, and growing suffering, and hatred. They are two sides of one corporate fascist party that rules by paying stolen money to control the short-sighted. Not sure what 'party' you believe is of any use at all at this poiint. The system itself is too badly broken for any change to come from inside it.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

OK then I couldn't disagree with you more, if you truly believe that a President Gore would have done the same things that President Bush did, or you think any different things he might of done would not matter then yes I disagree strongly, I do not think the dems are perfect in fact I think the republicans are just about perfectly bad.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

President Obama is continuing the Bush war legacy. If we attack Iran it will only be further evidence proving that fact. You ever see the movie W? Iran was the prize in the center. And now Iran is all the talk in year 3 of the Obama years.

Look up the Status of Forces Agreement.

And Gore would have been much better than Bush and absolute corruption took place in that election. Hands down agree with that. But keep in mind both dems and repubs supported the Financial Modernization Act of 1999, which caused so many financial problems. Now they're both supporting the republican Jobs Act. They both supported the Patriot Act.

Yes when it comes to other issues they have differing stances. But the majority of important issues like foreign WAR policy, the theft of our rights, and supporting the fraudulent financial system, they are the same.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

you post crap to confuse and demoralize, nothing in any of your stuff would help anybpdy make a choice that could make things better

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

So is it your position that Romney is different or better? or do you think things are fine and if we can't get....I don't know who you think should be President or do ypou continue to hold that it doesn'r matter who the President is maybe you think none of this matters the only thing that matters to you is that the people who care are truned off so you and the 1% can keep running things, or at least you can still get paid by them that do

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

I've given you this answer several times.

If they supported any of the following they need to be out of the government and you should not support them at all.

The Financial Modernization Act

The Republican Jobs Act

The Patriot Act

The NDAA of 2012 (without removing Section 1021)

The War in Iraq

The TARP bailouts

Defense of Marriage Act

I would say replacing over 95% of congress sounds like a great start. No if's and's or but's about it. Stop supporting these people that are stealing our rights and starting wars. Vote smart.

NOW Stop trolling me and telling me I'm a GOP shill. Being Anti-War is not being pro-GOP. Being anti-war is opposing all who support war.


[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

So there is no name in your post that I could put on the ballot, I know who you are against who are you for? Who do you support for President that is running? Do you think they will leave the office open? Do you think we should just let somebody else pick? Because we don’t have a perfect person, give me a name, you like to attack, what do you support?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

As of now I'm still undecided. As soon as I know every candidate that will be on the ballot in my state, I will look into all of them closely and make my decision. Remember, this list doesn't just apply to a president. It is how I choose to vote for congress as well.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

I can see that you know what's going on.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

Lets not get all hypothetical, we have actual history to look at. Obama did 'win' the media pageant, took the office, and did what any differently than the bush II regime? Gitmo still open, no 9/11 investigation, or any of the crimes of the previous regime, in fact O has expanded the already overwhelming powers of his office taking the ball from Jr. and running,. expanded drone murders in pakistan, made 'not-illegal' to hold american citizens for unspecified reasons for any amount of time, and even to murder them. NO big push to rebuild infrastructure, just more police powers, and military spending. The dems talk a slightly nicer game however in practice, (also see the Clinton years, etc.) we see the same agenda that is the 1%s corporate fascism. As long as pot is illegal i know the people are not in control,. just one of my sane social order barometers.

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 6 years ago

I have to point out that Gitmo still being open was not a Presidential issue but rather a congressional one. President Obama signed for the closure of Gitmo his first full day in office. Congress refused to fund it.

[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

The real point is; that changing from Rep. to Dem changes very little that matters,. it is just window dressing. Both 'parties' are tools of the 1%.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

Preach it brotha!

That is exactly what OWS is about. So many people on this forum forget about that.

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 6 years ago

ows is about fomenting civil and violent unrest so that barry can declare martial law. you're pawns.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

OWS is nonviolent. Which is why the most violence you saw on tv was from police and SWAT team intimidation. The government doesn't need OWS to pass martial law. It needs a corrupt congress and a corrupt president. Your Alex Jones style theory is creative but I don't find it to be factually accurate.


[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 6 years ago

so all the ows violence never happened? again, the purpose of ows is to foment civil and violent unrest before the nov, elections.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

What OWS violence? You are just making stuff up. The only violence associated with OWS is one sided, and coming from the police state.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

So what's all this income inequality stuff about?

You ever hear of Black Bloc?.. which Occupy even tried to stop when Black Bloc started destroying property.

Video proof of the truth in Oakland. The Black Bloc group is incredibly easy to spot, they wear all black, black face masks, and carry black flags - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqoFR1MPSH0

[-] -2 points by po6059 (72) 6 years ago

so you don't consider rape to be violent?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

Lulz you're one of those people huh?

A lot of rapists have been republicans and democrats too. Does that mean all democrats and republicans are rapists? The actions of the small few don't represent the masses.

[-] -2 points by po6059 (72) 6 years ago

the rapes within ows groups.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 6 years ago

Just inserting a little factual data into the mix.

[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

How about the fact that Obama promised to close gitmo in the campaign, and it is still open? The place is a gulag, and blight on the human race,. illegal when it was begun and therefor not to keep an illegal prison or an illegal occupation, or illegal police/state powers in place is not optional. These are egregious and no political mind games can alter this reality. Voting Dem. or Rep. will not change the powers in control, the fascist-military/corporate bankers.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Do you understand that Congress made it illegal to transfer prisoners to US soil? That meant that they all had to be transferred to other countries. That takes negotiations, not simply making a decision, and those negotiations are difficult and time consuming, since no other country wants the prisoners, either. What's more, 88 prisoners of the 171 still being held were set to be transferred when congress removed funding and disallowed future funding of transfers of prisoners to foreign soil as well as to US soil. The legislation passed the Senate by a vote of 97 to 3, making it totally veto-proof. The president's hands are tied. The best he could do was put an end to torture at GITMO and around the world, and stop the practice of extraordinary rendition, two things that Republicans wanted to see continued.

Not voting, or allowing the Repugnicants to retain control of the House will guarantee that GITMO stays open even longer. Making sure that Democrats control congress and the White House will untie the president's hands and enable him to fulfill his promise. There is a clear difference between the two parties on this issue, at least on the leadership level.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

Wow, what will it take for you to wake up to the facts, the Dems had control, and did nothing! You can claim all the congregational blocking you want,. Bush Jr. built gitmo with no OK from ANYONE! If Obama wanted to end gitmo it would be closed, period. How about returning all the 'prisoners' to the places they where kidnapped from, seems simple enough. If you can not press charges you have to let a 'suspect' go! (it is now over TEN YEARS these 'suspects' have been held with no trial, clearly this is abuse of power.) or at least you used to, this is no longer true, thanks to laws that Obama and the Dems have signed. Terrorism my ass.

And to be clear to my point closing gitmo is a but small sample of all the crap the Dems. claim to want to do UNTIL they get the power to do them. It is a ruse; they claim to be opposed to the actions of the Rep. until they are in power and then they just build on the same sht, instead of dismantling it. It is clear that the 1% controls both parties, and they clearly do the 1% s bidding.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

" If Obama wanted to end gitmo it would be closed, period. "

Nonsense. The president is not a King and must answer to the other branches of government. If prisoners cannot be transferred to US soil by law, they have to be transferred to foreign soil, which the president has tried hard to do , and largely successfully. If they cannot now be transferred to foreign soil by law, they have to stay where they are, regardless of the president's wishes.

"How about returning all the 'prisoners' to the places they where kidnapped from, seems simple enough."

The ones that are left have been determined to be an ongoing threat to the USA. Simply releasing them would be foolhardy. Charges need not be brought against those deemed prisoners of war. If one agrees that we are indeed at war, the definition, legally, holds. It is only if you believe that the current prisoners are no threat and never have been that your assertion holds water. And neither you nor I can make such a judgement as neither of us have the facts. But the record of previous releases indicates that some of them are still dangerous people, since many who have been so released to other countries have re-joined Al Qaeda and have subsequently killed more people.

THe Democrats in the house are in the minority. Those in the Senate are caving to accusations from the right that they are soft on terrorism. One party keeps GITMO open enthusiastically, one does so reluctantly in order to avoid being tarred with false accusations. That does not make both parties the same: their motivations are completely different.

Regardless, whatever you may think of Congress in terms of both parties does not apply to the president, whose has done everything he could legally do to close GITMO, and has been blocked at every turn.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

You are describing a very Kafkaesque prison nightmare, these are people you are talking about not some abstract 'prisoners' these are people that have not had a trial, and have been 'held' in a gulag created by George W Bush and maintained by Barack Obama, a rep. and a dem.

Have been determined? By who using what methods? Did they dunk them in water to see if they are witches too? oh yeah something like that was done to the 'prisoners'. They can not be 'prisoners of war' as the USA has not declared a 'war'. If you buy into this 'war OF terror' crap then you give all your rights to the military/police state forever, as that is the only outcome on offer over in that camp.

As with the above, I can see you convincing yourself of the truth you hold; gitmo can not be closed by human hands, it would require the power of a god, or some advanced alien technology. Is that it?

Lets get real. It is not an 'object', or a 'fact', gitmo is just a peculiarity of human organization, a social construct, nothing more. If we don't want it to exist 'yes we can' de-construct it. The real reason it remains is that it was illegal from the start, to close it will mean releasing the kidnapped foreigners, and this would allow them to talk, about how they got there, and what has happened to them while there. Then the legal battle, and the war crimes charges against the USA. That is the why. Yes Kafka wrote about just this type of reasoning. So, the USA delays the inevitable accountability for it's actions by keeping over a hundred humans never charged with a crime for over ten years?

and again, gitmo was just one example; why have we seen no charges in the 2008 financial manipulations? or any of the banks plundering each other, and taking out peoples retirements in the process? How about stopping the clearly illegal and unconscionable drone killings? (Obama has increased this, while trying to alter laws to make it some how 'legal') Or how about just letting the states decide if they want marijuana to be legal?? these are things that can be done it is only will to do them,. and neither the Reps. or the Dems. have any will but what the 1%. tells them.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

You really do like to conflate issues and go right for the hyperbole and melodrama, don't you?

GITMO can't be closed by this president without violating the law. Period. He has no power to do so. That authority was stripped from him by congress. You are blaming the wrong target.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

So tell me exactly what will Romeny do differently in your opinon that will be better? Because Romeny will certainly not raise MW, or fix the healthcare law, so what are the great things you feel he will do on the war front that would make him a better choice?

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

Romeny will change nothing, are you not reading my words?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

you see there's where I disagree, i think Romeny will be much worse, so I want to see him defeated, failure to vote for Obama, like it or not, puts Romeny in office

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

Yes but then this happened

"The Obama administration’s adoption of the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration flies in the face of the president’s stated desire to restore the rule of law. ... when these photos do see the light of day, the outrage will focus not only on the commission of torture by the Bush administration but on the Obama administration's complicity in covering them up." - ACLU


If you try and don't succeed, stop trying and hope the problem goes away. That's how I feel about Obama and GITMO... and yes congress is totally fucked up. I will agree with you on that. I think congress is completely corrupt to the core and is the reason we see so many problems. Since 2000 we haven't seen a president impeached for the many war crimes that have occurred.

When it comes to the corrupt congress, blow jobs are somehow more important. It's absolute bullshit.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

It is not "hypothetical" that many people voted for Nader, before we do a another major screw up like put Bush in again, we should give some thought as to how that truned out the last time... you want to talk about Obama, first tell me exactly how Romeny will be better.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

of course Gore would have done what Bush did-
the logic is obvious
their names both have four letters
why would I need to understand more than that?

...................................................................a proud dittohead

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

of course, sorry ben, what was I thinking

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

no sorry needed - my sarcasm has got me into trouble before!
There are so many crazies here, it can be hard to tell!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

hey, I was joking too, DKA talked to me about just ingoring these guys, I think he makes a good point the trolls just clog the threads, I just love a "fight" reminds me of beng back at work, odd thing in one case thought I had a troll for sure he truned out just a bit confused and really does belive, we say hi from time to time now, I understand people can disagree, but lies and distrotion is how we got in this mess

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

If she was muslim chances are her husband killed her...or her father !

[-] 1 points by GildasSapiens (266) 6 years ago

That's exactly the sort of bigoted hatemongering that causes attacks like this, & the recent massacre of Afghani civilians, "FriendlyObserverB".

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

No it doesn't . pointing out the obvious is the best way to deal with these problems.. muslims are well known for their brutal treatment of women and wives.. all to frequently.. the attack by the recent soldier was a completely different issue. I can understand why he did it , and I also feel the loss and mourning for the loved ones that have to live through such a tragedy .. one man lost his mother, wife, and daughters .. he must be suffering greatly.. it's a terrible terrible world we live in sometimes .. and wars should be prevented whenever possible.because the reality of war is very very harsh. all around ..

[-] 1 points by GildasSapiens (266) 6 years ago

Just admit that you're a bigoted, Muslim-hating liar - you might as well, so many of your comments prove it.

And your sympathy for that Nazi-style mass-murderier proves that you're little better than a psychopath, too.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

My sympathy goes out to the loved ones that suffer the tragedy, but my understanding goes out to the soldier. His situation reminds me of columbine. everyone has a breaking point of being bullied.. and with the soldier being taunted by the afghans daily .. the snap was inevitable .. there has to be a release.. and as bad as the crime was .. the afghan may show a little less disrespect to the American soldier , if they see a possibility of retaliation .. face the american soldier basically has his hands tied over there .. with the recent burning of the Quran, eve nthe president wouldn't support the American soldier .. against an enemy of war.. and it iss war over there don't forget it ..

it is not with hate that I use the word muslim .. it is to recognize the problem associated with their culture/religion. and I will not defend their violence.


[-] -1 points by Secretariat (33) 6 years ago

""NATO is staging "Massacre of Christians in Syria by Muslims", by bringing Al Qaida and other radical Islamists to Syria, in order to initiate a war, where they can nuke Iran, give a lesson to rising China, control Middle East oil resources, and allow some people to print as much money as they wish by using petrodollars, so they can control the society and the world through their wealth and power. This will also allow capitalism to continue by breaking the Eastern and the Socialist spirituality which is growing around the world and which is the biggest threat to capitalist ruling elite. ""

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

What is this you are quoting?

[-] 0 points by Secretariat (33) 6 years ago


[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

a troll whispered this into Secretariat's ear
..........................................................................................................................or other opening @