| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
Voice of Iraqis Why don’t antiwar types want to hear them? Source Could I have the microphone for one minute to tell the people about my life?" asked the Iraqi grandmother. I spent part of a recent Saturday with the so-called "antiwar" marchers in London in the company of some Iraqi friends. Our aim had been to persuade the organizers to let at least one Iraqi voice to be heard. Soon, however, it became clear that the organizers were as anxious to stifle the voice of the Iraqis in exile as was Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The Iraqis had come with placards reading "Freedom for Iraq" and "American rule, a hundred thousand times better than Takriti tyranny!" But the tough guys who supervised the march would have none of that. Only official placards, manufactured in thousands and distributed among the "spontaneous" marchers, were allowed. These read "Bush and Blair, baby-killers," " Not in my name," "Freedom for Palestine," and "Indict Bush and Sharon." Not one placard demanded that Saddam should disarm to avoid war. The goons also confiscated photographs showing the tragedy of Halabja, the Kurdish town where Saddam's forces gassed 5,000 people to death in 1988. We managed to reach some of the stars of the show, including Reverend Jesse Jackson, the self-styled champion of American civil rights. One of our group, Salima Kazim, an Iraqi grandmother, managed to attract the reverend's attention and told him how Saddam Hussein had murdered her three sons because they had been dissidents in the Baath Party; and how one of her grandsons had died in the war Saddam had launched against Kuwait in 1990. "Could I have the microphone for one minute to tell the people about my life?" 78-year-old Salima demanded. The reverend was not pleased. "Today is not about Saddam Hussein," he snapped. "Today is about Bush and Blair and the massacre they plan in Iraq." Salima had to beat a retreat, with all of us following, as the reverend's gorillas closed in to protect his holiness. We next spotted former film star Glenda Jackson, apparently manning a stand where "antiwar" characters could sign up to become "human shields" to protect Saddam's military installations against American air attacks. "These people are mad," said Awad Nasser, one of Iraq's most famous modernist poets. "They are actually signing up to sacrifice their lives to protect a tyrant's death machine." The former film star, now a Labor party member of parliament, had no time for "side issues" such as the 1.2 million Iraqis, Iranians, and Kuwaitis who have died as a result of Saddam's various wars. We thought we might have a better chance with Charles Kennedy, a boyish-looking, red-headed Scot who leads the misnamed Liberal Democrat party. But he, too, had no time for "complex issues" that could not be raised at a mass rally. "The point of what we are doing here is to tell the American and British governments that we are against war," he pontificated. "There will be ample time for other issues." But was it not amazing that there could be a rally about Iraq without any mention of what Saddam and his regime have done over almost three decades? Just a little hint, perhaps, that Saddam was still murdering people in his Qasr al-Nayhayah (Palace of the End) prison, and that as the Westerners marched, Iraqis continued to die? Not a chance. We then ran into Tony Benn, a leftist septuagenarian who has recycled himself as a television reporter to interview Saddam in Baghdad. But we knew there was no point in talking to him. The previous night he had appeared on TV to tell the Brits that his friend Saddam was standing for "the little people" against "hegemonistic America." "Are these people ignorant, or are they blinded by hatred of the United States?" Nasser the poet demanded. The Iraqis would had much to tell the "antiwar" marchers, had they had a chance to speak. Fadel Sultani, president of the National Association of Iraqi authors, would have told the marchers that their action would encourage Saddam to intensify his repression. "I had a few questions for the marchers," Sultani said. "Did they not realize that oppression, torture and massacre of innocent civilians are also forms of war? Are the antiwar marchers only against a war that would liberate Iraq, or do they also oppose the war Saddam has been waging against our people for a generation?" Sultani could have told the peaceniks how Saddam's henchmen killed dissident poets and writers by pushing page after page of forbidden books down their throats until they choked. Hashem al-Iqabi, one of Iraq's leading writers and intellectuals, had hoped the marchers would mention the fact that Saddam had driven almost four million Iraqis out of their homes and razed more than 6,000 villages to the ground. "The death and destruction caused by Saddam in our land is the worst since Nebuchadnezzar," he said. "These prosperous, peaceful, and fat Europeans are marching in support of evil incarnate." He said that, watching the march, he felt Nazism was "alive and well and flexing its muscles in Hyde Park." Abdel-Majid Khoi, son of the late Grand Ayatollah Khoi, Iraq's foremost religious leader for almost 40 years, spoke of the "deep moral pain" he feels when hearing the so-called " antiwar" discourse. "The Iraqi nation is like a man who is kept captive and tortured by a gang of thugs," Khoi said. "The proper moral position is to fly to help that man liberate himself and bring the torturers to book. But what we witness in the West is the opposite: support for the torturers and total contempt for the victim." Khoi said he would say ahlan wasahlan (welcome) to anyone who would liberate Iraq. "When you are being tortured to death you are not fussy about who will save you," he said. Ismail Qaderi, a former Baathist official but now a dissident, wanted to tell the marchers how Saddam systematically destroyed even his own party, starting by murdering all but one of its 16 original leaders. "Those who see Saddam as a symbol of socialism, progress, and secularism in the Arab world must be mad," he said. Khalid Kishtaini, Iraq's most famous satirical writer, added his complaint. "Don't these marchers know that the only march possible in Iraq under Saddam Hussein is from the prison to the firing-squad?" he asked. "The Western marchers behave as if the US wanted to invade Switzerland, not Iraq under Saddam Hussein." With all doors shutting in our faces we decided to drop out of the show and watch the political zoology of the march from the sidelines. Who were these people who felt such hatred of their democratic governments and such intense self-loathing? There were the usual suspects: the remnants of the Left, from Stalinists and Trotskyites to caviar socialists. There were the pro-abortionists, the anti-GM food crowd, the anti-capital-punishment militants, the black-rights gurus, the anti-Semites, the "burn Israel" lobby, the "Bush-didn't-win-Florida" zealots, the unilateral disarmers, the anti-Hollywood "cultural exception" merchants, and the guilt-ridden postmodernist "everything is equal to everything else" philosophers. But the bulk of the crowd consisted of fellow travelers, those innocent citizens who, prompted by idealism or boredom, are always prepared to play the role of "useful idiots," as Lenin used to call them. They ignored the fact that the peoples of Iraq are unanimous in their prayers for the war of liberation to come as quickly as possible. The number of marchers did not impress Salima, the grandmother. "What is wrong does not become right because many people say it," she asserted, bidding us farewell while the marchers shouted "Not in my name!" Let us hope that when Iraq is liberated, as it soon will be, the world will remember that it was not done in the name of Rev. Jackson, Charles Kennedy, Glenda Jackson, Tony Benn, and their companions in a march of shame. |
|
OK, who read this article that is posted here? Yet you still stick to your POLITical BS arguments of Pres Bush Vs Liberals and ani-bush europeans This was started by someone else not named bush, his name was saddam. but we forget that in an attempt to assinate the president's character and my integrity. By default, you are aligned with hussien because you align yourselves with those whom seek to keep him in power. Lead, follow, or get the fuck out of the way |
dude, if anyone can take a little name-calling, it's the republicans. ever listen to this fuckwad? or this nitwit? these bitches and their ilk sport petrified wood whenever they can use the word liberal disparagingly. poor conservatives always getting picked on. ain't no motherfucker more smug, sanctimonious, and hypocritical than a republican uttering the word "liberal". |
|
If anyone spouts "party line shit" around here spunks, it's you. I'm aligned with Hussien? Oookkkay, Mr. Black and White. Whatever makes it easier for you to comprehend the world. Man, you make me laugh. I don't think you have to worry about your integrity, fella. He knows so little and knows it so fluently. - Ellen Glasgow |
What is your suggestion that will remove hussien from dictatorship for once and for all. Don't bother suggesting more resolutions. 12 years and 17 resolutions later, nothing has changed. Why are there no human right advocates screaming for him to be removed? Millions, and no I am not sensationalizing nor exaggerating, litteraly millions have been murdered by his direct orders. Yet the protests are all aimed at bush & blair. You protest bush & blair removing this guy, that means you side with saddam staying in power. Simple. This is black and white. There is no room for gray. We gave that TWELVE years and are now on UN Resolution #18. Where else could you stand in this? What is your honest suggestion? |
Sem, the dictator...what an ass you sound like. "Lead, follow, or get the fuck out of the way" Sounds like you don't like dissent much. You seem more like Saddam than anyone. I wish my world were as simple as yours. p.s. nice dave. |
|
What in your heart tells you to stand up for "no Blood for oil" or whatever. What is yours, daves, and patricks stance on this? Where do you stand? 1. Removing him by force, after 12 years of diplomatic solutions via sanctions, resolutions, inspections, etc. 2. Continuing diplomatic solutions via sanctions, resolutions, inspections, etc. If so, how many more, how much longer? 3. Lifting Sanctions and Inspections and revoking all 17 resolutions and vetoing the 18th resolution. This soluiton will stabilize oil supplies, reduce fuel costs, and provide economic releif for Saddam Hussien personally after the US and UK pay for restoring all oil production infrastructure that has been ignored by the Ba'ath party for the last decade. 4. Nuke the entire middle east and saying "The hell with it all, I don't live there anyway". 5. Cease all purchases of oil from the middle east, causing economic shock to the region, resulting in the current governments in the reason to adopt a more hard line approach against it's own citizens, incensing more in the region to wage jihad against the United States for forsaking them, and letting the economies crumble. Hmmm? |
There's some Iraqi voices for you. |
and my world is simple, see? |
local government controlled media (PR or Propoganda) releases. you should be used to them by now. Dammit, do you even know where the ministry of the press building is? do you now the process one must go through to get statements like that out? maybe you beleived them when they released the report that 101% of the population voted for sadaam hussien in the latest election? Talk about gullable |
trace dont be absurd. of course no one believed the results of the Iraqi election. just like we arent believing that Iraqis are eager for the rain of fire the US military is itching to unleash. Reasons to take out Iraq. Take your pick. 1)He's a dictator Fine, the list of dictators and leaders who exhibit tyrranical behavior is long. Lets not stop at Iraq. 2) He's violated UN mandates, treaties, agreements etc. That list is long too. You got some time? 3) WMDs The nations on that list is also kinda long too. 4) Threat to US. There has never been any substantiated threat. No substantial proof he is firmly aligned with al Qaida and has never made a direct unprovoked threat to the US. All the threats that he poses for the US have been alleged by the powers that want war. He doesnt have the technology to engage the US on its own soil, and hasnt shown the motive he would. He ass was cleaned when he tried to take a nation the size of Rhode Island. He would be foolish to ever attempt an unprovoked attack on the US. Substantiate your threat bitch. Being an "enemy" is no reason for war, otherwise Castro would have been potted meat decades ago. every reason you cite is hypocritical. i realize this is all over-simplified but you dont seem to take it any other way. nothing that has transpired so far in this whole Iraq matter is a justifiable reason for war you numbskull. I dont give a rats ass if it was Mickey fuckin Mouse in the White House. Bush is just an easy target and I'll admit. Yes. I hate Bush for what represents, who he represents, what he has done, and what he wants to do. But to think I wouldnt be opposed to this war if it were a democrat, Clinton or whoever in the office is absurd. You cite most often that "he is a dictator and should be removed". Since when do you get to play fucking god with world affairs? Since when do you get to make your own rules. You cite the ineffectiveness of the UN, but the UN is the only thing keeping the world from complete fuckign chaos and i believe that firmly. It keeps rampant nations (such as the US is becoming) in check. You don't violate the UN to enforce the UN dumbass. You know damn well that because he is a dictator, or that he has violated UN mandates is not reason enough to invade a sovereign nation, without provocation. |
hell, no one should even believe the results of the US election. I just heard Wolf Blitzer say that the human shield protesters are just as bad as the Iraqi army, because they're working for the same goal- keeping the US from taking Iraq. The poor field reporter looked at him like he was insane... via satellite. Holy fuck that man has a black heart. I never really noticed till right now. is anything black or white? bad or good? anything at all? "Evil is a fancy word for things you don't like" |
|
|
|
invest in kleenex if you think there's a market for products aiding weeping capitalists. put a box of tissues in your luxury sport coupe to staunch the flow of tears as you commute from sprawlng suburbia to the office. because i know it breaks your heart. if only common people knew the burden of privelege. "do they like/dislike me for me or my money?" whose reality is this? |
|
|
A black-and-white mind working on a color-coded problem. |
you're basis is myth. the average donation to the republican party is $50. the average donation to the democratic party is in the thousands. who has the money, buddy? |
|
where does this statistic come from? honestly nate, sometimes i'd swear you make this stuff up. |
It's harldy the average amount that counts. |
So I better leave it alone for now! |
|
fuck, i have to go work all day. have fun, kids! |
sort of like the article you posted about least harm agriculture practices, which turned out to be poorly executed, bullshit research. |
just like 44.93 has more authority than 45. it's a matter of perception. dave, i won't deny hypocracy anywhere. republican's just don't hold a monopoly on it. i think the key difference between the left and the right is simply a matter of what is kept hidden and what is out in the open. aside from that, everyone is playing the same game, same wants, same needs. just different constituients to appease. |
Of course, I support Saddam Hussein, so what do I know? |
hey...Clinton wasnt hounded, he earned every ounce of heat he took for 8 years. |
Lies. Damn Lies. And, statistics. To bad I cann't remember the source for that quote. I don't really trust any politian. I think 99.9% of them are ego centric hedonists. And, the .01% who aren't cann't get elected. Oh, and one last time. Bush did not steal the election. The Supeme Court did not appoint him as President they only upheld Florida's election laws. And, the Florida newspapers after checking every ballot even under Al Gore's varying standards for each district found that Bush won. |
|
Lies Damn Lies Statistics Trace talking |
what, have i lied about? |
|
Spunky shut up. |