Monday, August 02, 2004
It is Christians Now
A few months ago there was an exceptionally horrible blast at one of the Shiite holy shrines in which hundreds were killed. A few days later, I was having a conversation with an old "stanch" Shiite who dismissed any talk of a possibility that the incident was the work of extremist Sunnis by saying "I don't believe there is any likelihood of that. The shrine has been sitting there facing Sunnis for a thousand years and no one ever did any harm to it, why would they now?"
Simple logic! That simple logic won the day. Shiite and Sunni people (not politicians) in Iraq are now closer than they have ever been.
This time it is churches, on a Sunday!
The same logic still applies. We have some of the world's oldest churches in this country. In recent history too, Iraq has been a sanctuary and a safe haven for many thousands of Armenians who fled the atrocities inflicted on them in their own country by the Ottomans.
Mark my words; this horrible new atrocity will only bring the Iraqi people closer.
The question is: who is responsible? Terrorists? Fanatics? Al Qaeda? Possibly. But who brought these people to our country? Who left our borders unguarded for more than a year? Who turned our country into a battlefield against terrorism?
I place the blood of all those innocent people on the hands of those people responsible for creating this situation that gives horrible people the freedom to do those horrible things.
Simple logic! That simple logic won the day. Shiite and Sunni people (not politicians) in Iraq are now closer than they have ever been.
This time it is churches, on a Sunday!
The same logic still applies. We have some of the world's oldest churches in this country. In recent history too, Iraq has been a sanctuary and a safe haven for many thousands of Armenians who fled the atrocities inflicted on them in their own country by the Ottomans.
Mark my words; this horrible new atrocity will only bring the Iraqi people closer.
The question is: who is responsible? Terrorists? Fanatics? Al Qaeda? Possibly. But who brought these people to our country? Who left our borders unguarded for more than a year? Who turned our country into a battlefield against terrorism?
I place the blood of all those innocent people on the hands of those people responsible for creating this situation that gives horrible people the freedom to do those horrible things.
***
Yes, I am angry, Pat in NC. In fact I am boiling with anger. But I still don't hate the USA regardless of what some people have been saying in their comments. I don't have enough capacity to hate a huge country that has millions upon millions of decent people I happen to share so many of their values.
# posted by Abu Khaleel @ 1:34 PM 
Comments:
Seems like you blame the USA again (borders). Sorry I don't believe the Iraqi people have done enough. For years you have slept with the devil, allowed him to go to war with neighbors, produce WMDs and use them - millions killed. Iraqi's helped and did this, you're not blame free and you're guilty of Apathy at the very least. What about putting the blame at those who commit the actual crimes? As well as those that support them (Iran, etc.). I sometimes think Iraqi's are too quick to claim 'victim' without really thinking about how each of you bears some responsibility.
_____________________________________________________________________
Who bears responsibility for supporting Saddam in the 80s? Then helping Iran at the same time, too? Reagan...and Rumsfeld even went over there and shook the devil's hand. Who allowed Saddam to slaughter thousands upon thousands of Shiites that were urged to rise up by Bush Sr. after the first Gulf War? General Norman Shwarzkopf. Why couldn't it have been finished then? Who is sleeping with who? I think the person who just commented needs to learn their history better. peace for iraq, peace for america
_____________________________________________________________________
Abu Khaleel,
Glad to have blogs like yours. I see you don't receive hundreds of comments for each post you create. This is unlike SOME of so-called Iraqi bloggers who do nothing but kissing the asses of the Americans. Yes, they keep receiving hundreds of comments cheering for them on each of their posts. They have become monkeys of the Americans.
As far as most the commenters are concerned, they are either so stupid who don't realize what their country; US, has done to Iraq or are just bunch of fascists who are the supporters of the most criminal regime in the US's history who is responsible for the death of thousands of civilian Iraqis.
I am glad you are not fooled by the fascistic cheers of this arrogant bastards.
_____________________________________________________________________
And Iraqi's would have lived a much happier, healthier life if the American's never came??? Life would have been better, filled with hope and depicted as love and happiness by Michael Moore?
We may have given saddam his whip, but you didn't have to take the hit.
_____________________________________________________________________
Your anger is largely misdirected. There is plenty of blame to go around. First and foremost, it should be directed at the terrorist that conducted these despicable acts. Second, it should be directed at the Islamic "religious leaders" who help organize the "resistance" and condone such behaviour. Third, you shoud direct some anger at any ordinary Iraqi who aids, sympathisizes with, provides cover for, or excuses the violent thugs that are responsible for these bombings. All Iraqis should be doing everything in there power to end the violent "resistance," including turning them in to the authorities. Where, as in Iraq, a participatory democratic government is being formed, political violence is simply "immoral." Please start taking responsibilty for your own country and quit blaming everyone else.
All that being said, the U.S. bears responsibilty for not invading with far more troops to ensure post invasion security. However, you need to recognize the big political trade off with such a massive invasion. It would have created a greater impression of U.S. Imperial ambition and the enlarged foot print of such an occupation (picture two to three time more troops) would have been likely to generate increased resentment among the Iraqi people.
You seem to be an advocate for leaving the Iraqi military and secret service largely intact after the occupation to ensure security. This would have resulted in the core source of Batthist power remaining intact. Your option would have likely ended in the rise to power of a despotic general from within the army. Trading one despot for another should not be an acceptable outcome to anyone.
The other option is to have left Sadam in power. Given his despotism, cruelity, reckless militarism and meglomania, that was the risky option of all for the long term future of Iraq and the world. In short, there was no "easy" way to get rid of Saddam and guarantee security. You can argue that different policies should have been pursued, but don't pretend that they don't have serious risks of there own.
Mark-In-Chi-Town
_____________________________________________________________________
So it boils to "kissing the asses of the American bastards", or something else. Great world we're living in these days.
The American view is this: Saddam Hussein was a reckless, destabilizing little pest who needed to be exterminated, along with his psychotic sons. Yes, the Reagan people fed him against the Iranians, and this was a big mistake. But the biggest contributors to his military were the Russians, the French and the Germans. Funny how these were the nations most adamantly against his removal from power.
The American view: Yes, the Israelis are obnoxious, but they are at least a democratic society. Become a democratic society, Iraq, and we will love you in every sense of the word. You Arabs treat the Palestinians like dogs as well, so don't get sanctimonious. Your dictator governments manipulate the situation in Palestine for their own ends, then start TV channels to further their ends. And we pay them because they either have oil or are the only game in town. Hardly a morally pure situation from any perspective.
If you want a new Middle East you have to manage to do more than complain about the Americans and the Jews. Many of you sound like spoiled western Europeans of the left. Well, good luck, then. You have no real political freedom, and your governments support anti-Americanism as a way of deflecting criticism from their own failings.
Iraqis, you have freedom to speak, so stop 'kissing the ass' of the bombers. You don't live in Europe, so you don't have the luxury of sniping from the sidelines of history.You are history right now, and you're looking a bit wobbly. No other society had $200 billion and a mighty army behind them, yet looked so pathetic.
Americans stood up to a superpower to win their freedom. You don't have to. The only thing you win by supporting the 'resistance' is another 50 years of misery and dictatorship. Don't worry, the new Iraqi dictatorship will be happy to sell us oil, but you will be in a worse condition.
_____________________________________________________________________
Let me answer your shortsighted and simplistic questions:
Who bears responsibility for supporting Saddam in the 80s? The WORLD supported Saddam at first because they thought he was going to rule Iraq in a secular way.
In the Iran/Iraq war the US had a choice. Either support Saddam or support the Ayatollah that railed against the US every day and took our people hostages. Which would you have picked?? I await your answer. Your ignorant self seems to think that the world is not a complex place and our choices are always between Mother Theresa and Hitler. There are NO simplistic choices in this world my friend.
Who allowed Saddam to slaughter thousands upon thousands of Shiites that were urged to rise up by Bush Sr. after the first Gulf War?
The US went in after the WORLD and the UN said that the WORLD could not tolerate Iraq aggression on Kuwait. Under the UN RESOLUTION,let me say that again.... UNDER THE UN RESOLUTION, the US was not allowed to overthrow Saddam. Let me say that again. UNDER THE UN RESOLUTION, the US was not allowed to overthrow Saddam. Once George Bush thought that Saddam was weak enough (which he was) he asked the IRAQI's to do what YOUR PEOPLE should have done to begin with and take care of YOUR business and overthrow SADDAM. Sadly enough, even with Saddam so weak only a very SMALL segment rose up which is why YOU Failed to overthrow Saddam. This is why we are now stuck doing your dirty work and paying HUGE SUMS of money and our children to pay for YOUR FREEDOM.
So, we are reviled if we listen to the UN and we are reviled when we DON"T listen to the UN. Make up your mind.
_____________________________________________________________________
You know America stood up to a SUPERPOWER (Britain) to win their independence. We didn't have anyone hand it to us. Now YOU have a mighty country fighting your battles for you but we can't do it alone. YOU and your countrymen need to get your azzes up and FIGHT. Otherwise, you'll have no one to blame but YOURSELVES.
_____________________________________________________________________
The other comments by "Americans" seem a little confused.
The US supported Saddam because the Iranians were anti-American not because of their religious extemism. During the early 80s the US was creating what became Al Qaeda by helping fund crazies to fly to Afghanistan and fight the Soviets; US foreign policy at the time was seen in bipolar terms and secularism, freedom, equality and the like were hollow terms used by both sides for geopolitical ends. The US sided with Iraq against Iran since the Shah had been a US ally ever since the first elected (but moderately proSoviet) leader of Iran was thrown out by the US in the late 1950s after he started talking about nationalizing oil production.
I like how the American posting above demands Iraqis to get off their asses and fight. Does he realize that those young macho youth who are the only ones who ever follow such calls are the very people fighting US troops right now? The gung ho pro-war psychology of the US right is almost identical to that of those trying to knock off as many US troops as they can in the name of freedom. Freedom is pretty abstract especially when those who want people to go off and gun people down in its name want a world without much personal freedom (whether it be Islamic Law or the Patriot Act)
Is there any hope for Iraq? Perhaps if Bush get kicked out there will be a little hope (supporting the occupiers wont mean supporting someone so hated) but until the money going to rebuild Iraq goes to Iraqis (rather than kcikbacks to US companies that backed Bush) its hard to seeing most Iraqis suporting the occupiers. Iraq has plenty of well trained peopel who can rebuild but right now the US is in the way and no matter what foreign force takes the US's place, it will evetually be hated if unemployment is the main result of international aid.
_____________________________________________________________________
Kick Bush out? John Kerry has already said that he has a "plan" (like he always does...and it always better than Bush's...but we can't know what they are until he's president...seems a little fishy to me) to take troops out of Iraq within 6 months of his becoming president. So the terrorists/jihadists will just be nice until then and then Iraq will really be in trouble. I would like to say that there have been many brave Iraqis that have been working for peace there. Many voulnteers have been killed by jihadists while waiting at recuritment stations for the army and police and many more performing their duty to restore peace in Iraq. I think those here in the US and elsewhere should remember their sacrifices. I also agree with others who said that many more Iraqis have to fight and cooperate with the US. The US colonial army in the 1700's lost many people and went through many hardships to win the war aginst Britian...and it's not going to happen in Iraq unless the people want to be free and want to fight for it. From here it seems that many Iraqis are trying to fight the US instead of helping...or are supporting the terrorists/jihadists and their actions. No one brought the terrorists/jihadists to Iraq...they came to Iraq to make sure the people there are still oppressed...accept by them instead of Sadam.
_____________________________________________________________________
Post a Comment
<< Home
Seems like you blame the USA again (borders). Sorry I don't believe the Iraqi people have done enough. For years you have slept with the devil, allowed him to go to war with neighbors, produce WMDs and use them - millions killed. Iraqi's helped and did this, you're not blame free and you're guilty of Apathy at the very least. What about putting the blame at those who commit the actual crimes? As well as those that support them (Iran, etc.). I sometimes think Iraqi's are too quick to claim 'victim' without really thinking about how each of you bears some responsibility.
# posted by 
: 2/8/04 6:23 PM
: 2/8/04 6:23 PM Who bears responsibility for supporting Saddam in the 80s? Then helping Iran at the same time, too? Reagan...and Rumsfeld even went over there and shook the devil's hand. Who allowed Saddam to slaughter thousands upon thousands of Shiites that were urged to rise up by Bush Sr. after the first Gulf War? General Norman Shwarzkopf. Why couldn't it have been finished then? Who is sleeping with who? I think the person who just commented needs to learn their history better. peace for iraq, peace for america
# posted by : 3/8/04 3:52 AM
: 3/8/04 3:52 AM Abu Khaleel,
Glad to have blogs like yours. I see you don't receive hundreds of comments for each post you create. This is unlike SOME of so-called Iraqi bloggers who do nothing but kissing the asses of the Americans. Yes, they keep receiving hundreds of comments cheering for them on each of their posts. They have become monkeys of the Americans.
As far as most the commenters are concerned, they are either so stupid who don't realize what their country; US, has done to Iraq or are just bunch of fascists who are the supporters of the most criminal regime in the US's history who is responsible for the death of thousands of civilian Iraqis.
I am glad you are not fooled by the fascistic cheers of this arrogant bastards.
# posted by : 3/8/04 8:15 AM
: 3/8/04 8:15 AM And Iraqi's would have lived a much happier, healthier life if the American's never came??? Life would have been better, filled with hope and depicted as love and happiness by Michael Moore?
We may have given saddam his whip, but you didn't have to take the hit.
# posted by : 3/8/04 10:46 AM
: 3/8/04 10:46 AM Your anger is largely misdirected. There is plenty of blame to go around. First and foremost, it should be directed at the terrorist that conducted these despicable acts. Second, it should be directed at the Islamic "religious leaders" who help organize the "resistance" and condone such behaviour. Third, you shoud direct some anger at any ordinary Iraqi who aids, sympathisizes with, provides cover for, or excuses the violent thugs that are responsible for these bombings. All Iraqis should be doing everything in there power to end the violent "resistance," including turning them in to the authorities. Where, as in Iraq, a participatory democratic government is being formed, political violence is simply "immoral." Please start taking responsibilty for your own country and quit blaming everyone else.
All that being said, the U.S. bears responsibilty for not invading with far more troops to ensure post invasion security. However, you need to recognize the big political trade off with such a massive invasion. It would have created a greater impression of U.S. Imperial ambition and the enlarged foot print of such an occupation (picture two to three time more troops) would have been likely to generate increased resentment among the Iraqi people.
You seem to be an advocate for leaving the Iraqi military and secret service largely intact after the occupation to ensure security. This would have resulted in the core source of Batthist power remaining intact. Your option would have likely ended in the rise to power of a despotic general from within the army. Trading one despot for another should not be an acceptable outcome to anyone.
The other option is to have left Sadam in power. Given his despotism, cruelity, reckless militarism and meglomania, that was the risky option of all for the long term future of Iraq and the world. In short, there was no "easy" way to get rid of Saddam and guarantee security. You can argue that different policies should have been pursued, but don't pretend that they don't have serious risks of there own.
Mark-In-Chi-Town
# posted by : 3/8/04 8:22 PM
: 3/8/04 8:22 PM So it boils to "kissing the asses of the American bastards", or something else. Great world we're living in these days.
The American view is this: Saddam Hussein was a reckless, destabilizing little pest who needed to be exterminated, along with his psychotic sons. Yes, the Reagan people fed him against the Iranians, and this was a big mistake. But the biggest contributors to his military were the Russians, the French and the Germans. Funny how these were the nations most adamantly against his removal from power.
The American view: Yes, the Israelis are obnoxious, but they are at least a democratic society. Become a democratic society, Iraq, and we will love you in every sense of the word. You Arabs treat the Palestinians like dogs as well, so don't get sanctimonious. Your dictator governments manipulate the situation in Palestine for their own ends, then start TV channels to further their ends. And we pay them because they either have oil or are the only game in town. Hardly a morally pure situation from any perspective.
If you want a new Middle East you have to manage to do more than complain about the Americans and the Jews. Many of you sound like spoiled western Europeans of the left. Well, good luck, then. You have no real political freedom, and your governments support anti-Americanism as a way of deflecting criticism from their own failings.
Iraqis, you have freedom to speak, so stop 'kissing the ass' of the bombers. You don't live in Europe, so you don't have the luxury of sniping from the sidelines of history.You are history right now, and you're looking a bit wobbly. No other society had $200 billion and a mighty army behind them, yet looked so pathetic.
Americans stood up to a superpower to win their freedom. You don't have to. The only thing you win by supporting the 'resistance' is another 50 years of misery and dictatorship. Don't worry, the new Iraqi dictatorship will be happy to sell us oil, but you will be in a worse condition.
# posted by : 4/8/04 7:51 AM
: 4/8/04 7:51 AM Let me answer your shortsighted and simplistic questions:
Who bears responsibility for supporting Saddam in the 80s? The WORLD supported Saddam at first because they thought he was going to rule Iraq in a secular way.
In the Iran/Iraq war the US had a choice. Either support Saddam or support the Ayatollah that railed against the US every day and took our people hostages. Which would you have picked?? I await your answer. Your ignorant self seems to think that the world is not a complex place and our choices are always between Mother Theresa and Hitler. There are NO simplistic choices in this world my friend.
Who allowed Saddam to slaughter thousands upon thousands of Shiites that were urged to rise up by Bush Sr. after the first Gulf War?
The US went in after the WORLD and the UN said that the WORLD could not tolerate Iraq aggression on Kuwait. Under the UN RESOLUTION,let me say that again.... UNDER THE UN RESOLUTION, the US was not allowed to overthrow Saddam. Let me say that again. UNDER THE UN RESOLUTION, the US was not allowed to overthrow Saddam. Once George Bush thought that Saddam was weak enough (which he was) he asked the IRAQI's to do what YOUR PEOPLE should have done to begin with and take care of YOUR business and overthrow SADDAM. Sadly enough, even with Saddam so weak only a very SMALL segment rose up which is why YOU Failed to overthrow Saddam. This is why we are now stuck doing your dirty work and paying HUGE SUMS of money and our children to pay for YOUR FREEDOM.
So, we are reviled if we listen to the UN and we are reviled when we DON"T listen to the UN. Make up your mind.
# posted by : 5/8/04 12:06 AM
: 5/8/04 12:06 AM You know America stood up to a SUPERPOWER (Britain) to win their independence. We didn't have anyone hand it to us. Now YOU have a mighty country fighting your battles for you but we can't do it alone. YOU and your countrymen need to get your azzes up and FIGHT. Otherwise, you'll have no one to blame but YOURSELVES.
# posted by : 5/8/04 12:10 AM
: 5/8/04 12:10 AM The other comments by "Americans" seem a little confused.
The US supported Saddam because the Iranians were anti-American not because of their religious extemism. During the early 80s the US was creating what became Al Qaeda by helping fund crazies to fly to Afghanistan and fight the Soviets; US foreign policy at the time was seen in bipolar terms and secularism, freedom, equality and the like were hollow terms used by both sides for geopolitical ends. The US sided with Iraq against Iran since the Shah had been a US ally ever since the first elected (but moderately proSoviet) leader of Iran was thrown out by the US in the late 1950s after he started talking about nationalizing oil production.
I like how the American posting above demands Iraqis to get off their asses and fight. Does he realize that those young macho youth who are the only ones who ever follow such calls are the very people fighting US troops right now? The gung ho pro-war psychology of the US right is almost identical to that of those trying to knock off as many US troops as they can in the name of freedom. Freedom is pretty abstract especially when those who want people to go off and gun people down in its name want a world without much personal freedom (whether it be Islamic Law or the Patriot Act)
Is there any hope for Iraq? Perhaps if Bush get kicked out there will be a little hope (supporting the occupiers wont mean supporting someone so hated) but until the money going to rebuild Iraq goes to Iraqis (rather than kcikbacks to US companies that backed Bush) its hard to seeing most Iraqis suporting the occupiers. Iraq has plenty of well trained peopel who can rebuild but right now the US is in the way and no matter what foreign force takes the US's place, it will evetually be hated if unemployment is the main result of international aid.
# posted by : 6/8/04 7:22 AM
: 6/8/04 7:22 AM Kick Bush out? John Kerry has already said that he has a "plan" (like he always does...and it always better than Bush's...but we can't know what they are until he's president...seems a little fishy to me) to take troops out of Iraq within 6 months of his becoming president. So the terrorists/jihadists will just be nice until then and then Iraq will really be in trouble. I would like to say that there have been many brave Iraqis that have been working for peace there. Many voulnteers have been killed by jihadists while waiting at recuritment stations for the army and police and many more performing their duty to restore peace in Iraq. I think those here in the US and elsewhere should remember their sacrifices. I also agree with others who said that many more Iraqis have to fight and cooperate with the US. The US colonial army in the 1700's lost many people and went through many hardships to win the war aginst Britian...and it's not going to happen in Iraq unless the people want to be free and want to fight for it. From here it seems that many Iraqis are trying to fight the US instead of helping...or are supporting the terrorists/jihadists and their actions. No one brought the terrorists/jihadists to Iraq...they came to Iraq to make sure the people there are still oppressed...accept by them instead of Sadam.
# posted by : 16/8/04 12:13 AM
: 16/8/04 12:13 AM << Home
