I have no sympathy for the Iraqis

[Paul McKenna]

And I dont think you would either after you look at the photos here
WARNING - EXTREMELY GRAPHIC PHOTOS, NOT FOR THE WEAK HEARTED!

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:
And I dont think you would either after you look at the photos here
WARNING - EXTREMELY GRAPHIC PHOTOS, NOT FOR THE WEAK HEARTED!

It must be condemned.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:
And I dont think you would either after you look at the photos here
WARNING - EXTREMELY GRAPHIC PHOTOS, NOT FOR THE WEAK HEARTED!

And the US thinks these people will accept democracy?

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by herb slocomb:
And the US thinks these people will accept democracy?

would you like sweet if it is put forcibly inside your mouth.

[Damien Howard]

1) You can't judge all people based on what some people do.
2) Many Iraqi's think of the US as an invading force, they don't want them there. Imagine if your country was occupied by a foreign country that you did not want there. Wouldn't you do the same in "defense" of your country.
Foreigners wouldn't be getting killed there, if they didn't go there. The US should leave the Iraqi's alone and help countries that want help such as Afghanistan. If US diverts all forces to Afghanistan to help US friendly President Kharzai (sp?) then the US could get the Democratic stronghold it desires. Eventually this will spill over into other countries. The US is allowing Afghanistan to revert back to what it was before the Taliban were kicked. US should worry about Afghanistan, Iraq is not yet ready to enter the 20th century let alone the 21st, but Afghanistan is trying.

[Tim Baker]

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:
And I dont think you would either after you look at the photos here
WARNING - EXTREMELY GRAPHIC PHOTOS, NOT FOR THE WEAK HEARTED!

All iraqis? There have been some pretty horrible crimes committed in our countries too you know.
Maybe now that these people have possed for the camera someone can lock them up

[Sadanand Murthy]

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:
And I dont think you would either after you look at the photos here
WARNING - EXTREMELY GRAPHIC PHOTOS, NOT FOR THE WEAK HEARTED!

So you don't have sympathy for Americans (at least Texans) because some Texans brutally murdered a black man some years ago by tying him to the tail of their pickup & dragging him around for hours. His head and arms were found separated from his body.
It is true that some Iraqis are violently opposed to US presence their. It is also possible that the numbers of such Iraqis is increasing day by day. But it doesn't prove that the entire nation of Iraqis is like these depraved maniacs. What it does prove is the virulence of the hatred that some Iraqis have towards US occupiers.
Just the other day a CNN (I think it was CNN) showcased one 4-member Iraqi family. Each had a different opinion about US's presence & the fall of Saddam & whether their lives are better off now than before.
It is, IMO, not fair or just to tar the entire Iraqi population as unworthy of any compassion based on the actions of some.

[Paul Stevens]

It wasn't against military personnel. It was against security guards for the food delivered there. Let's stop the dumb excuses for this.

[Don Stadler]

So you don't have sympathy for Americans (at least Texans) because some Texans brutally murdered a black man some years ago by tying him to the tail of their pickup & dragging him around for hours. His head and arms were found separated from his body.

And that's not even the worst part. The then governor of Texas contumaciously refused to help enact hate crimes legislation to prevent such crimes in future, stating his opinion that it was impossible to give a more severe sentence than that which was meted out to the criminals. That being the death penalty.
I find the arguments somewhat contradictory myself. Should we tack 10 years onto a death sentence for it being a 'hate crime'? Perhaps we should end the death penalty then add to the sentence? Thus lightening the severity of the sentence in a case like this one?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Damien Howard:
Wouldn't you do the same in "defense" of your country.

No, I wouldn't shoot four contractors, burn their bodies, drag them through the streets, and mutilate them. I like to think that I'm a civilized human being with morals.
The US should leave the Iraqi's alone and help countries that want help such as Afghanistan.
If we "left them alone", the situation would be out of control. The vast majority of Iraqis don't want to be "left alone", as evidenced by the survey posted in another thread.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Don Stadler:

And that's not even the worst part. The then governor of Texas contumaciously refused to help enact hate crimes legislation to prevent such crimes in future, stating his opinion that it was impossible to give a more severe sentence than that which was meted out to the criminals. That being the death penalty.
I find the arguments somewhat contradictory myself. Should we tack 10 years onto a death sentence for it being a 'hate crime'? Perhaps we should end the death penalty then add to the sentence? Thus lightening the severity of the sentence in a case like this one?

Legislators like to show their constituency that they are doing something about a problem by enacting legislation, particularly if the legislation they are trying to enact deals with an emotionally charged issue. The answer to all life's ills isn't more laws though.
All murder is a hate crime, and singling out one type of murder as being somehow worse than another doesn't quite seem right. To my way of thinking, child murder is the absolute worse form of murder, but you don't see them enacting any new laws for that one. Nor should they. Murder is murder. The sentence will reflect the heinousness of the crime, without the need to enact frivolous legislation.
[ March 31, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[frank davis]

Originally posted by R K Singh:

would you like sweet if it is put forcibly inside your mouth.

I agree, if somebobdy liberated me from a brutal dictator who murderd over 100 thousand of my fellow citizens AND then had the nerve to try to help my country set up a replacement government, I'd be mutilating and burning bodies right and left.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:

All iraqis? There have been some pretty horrible crimes committed in our countries too you know.

Nobody said all Iraqis, but my solid hunch is a very sizable and significant portion of that town (maybe even that region) supported such activities. These crimes were done openly and in the public, and WITH the support of the public. The men in those pictures had no need or desire to hide their faces, they were proud of what was done and everyone around them supported them.
Ah, yes, bad things have happened in our country in the past (nothing in anyone's living memory like this) and for that reason how dare I criticize another country and suggest they are not as civilized as us...?

Maybe now that these people have possed for the camera someone can lock them up

"Someone"? Who? You're making me laugh. The society in that town will reward those men. Those men gained status. They are heroes. The young boys dream of being part of the next burning and multilating and the special touches they will add to the ceremony to distinguish themselves amongst their peers.

[Billy Tsai]

I have no sympathy for the chinese that are communists.
tell them to go screw themselves

[Paul McKenna]

From NY Times:
"Some witnesses said the Americans were still alive when one boy came running up with a jug of gasoline. Soon, both vehicles were fireballs."

Sometimes, I feel as though I understand why Saddam had to gas his own people. These are not people, these are savage creatures..
[ March 31, 2004: Message edited by: Paul McKenna ]

[Arjun Shastry]

Paul,Don't generalize entire population from such incidance.

[Michael Ernest]

You condemn an entire nation of people based on the very worst they have to offer?
I can't imagine you think too highly of any nation, if that is your position.

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by Capablanca Kepler:
Paul,Don't generalize entire population from such incidance.

Did you look at the photos? KIDS!!! 10 years, 12 years old burning these corpses. If this is what children are taught, I'm not sure what kind of a future they will have.

[Arjun Shastry]

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

... If this is what children are taught, I'm not sure what kind of a future they will have.

Is somebody teaching the children or somebody's foolish decision has created that hatred in their minds?

[Jason Menard]

You can't judge the entire country just by pointing to a small segment of it. There are too many factions there for that to work. It might be time though that the US military put on the iron glove and let the people in Faluja know who is running the show. I have come to learn that there are folks in some parts of the world who will only respect strength, and possibly some type of a demonstration of strength would help the situation out. This event, although barbaric and not demonstrative of any kind of civilized behavior, is militarily insignificant. It will have little effect on our operations. We have learned the lesson from Clinton's retreat from Somalia after a similar incident, and I don't think it's anything that will be repeated anytime soon.
[ March 31, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Nathan Thurm]

Fallujah, on the Euphrates River 30 miles west of Baghdad, has a reputation for being a stronghold of support for Saddam Hussein, ousted last month by U.S. forces, and his Baath Party forces.
But residents bristle at the link, calling it a media creation. They acknowledge, however, that, unlike elsewhere in Iraq, senior party officials in Fallujah were not run out of the city or attacked.
Two of Saddam's murals in the city stand defaced, but much of the graffiti glorifying Saddam is left intact. "Saddam: a genius leadership," one reads.
Still, residents say the secular origins of the Baath meant that many shunned Saddam's party in this city of 200,000 people, who overwhelmingly adhere to Wahhabism, the same strict sect of Sunni Islam that rules in Saudi Arabia.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1928552
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8387
I think this helps explain the violence against foreigners/Americans in Fallujah, due to Saddam loyalism and Salafism/Wahhabism (among other factors) and, hopefully, it's the exception rather than the rule in Iraq though after today I am very concerned.
A silver lining to this I'm realizing is that maybe the war on terrorism will shift to become more of a war on Wahhabism instead. 15 of the 19 WTC
terrorist, the Taliban government, and finally the achictect of the Madrid bombings (link below) followed Wahhabism.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1040322/asp/foreign/story_3032216.asp
I would think that this might have broader international support, including from secular Muslims.
[ March 31, 2004: Message edited by: Nathan Thurm ]
[ March 31, 2004: Message edited by: Nathan Thurm ]

[HS Thomas]

I wish I hadn't looked at the pictures.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by herb slocomb:
I agree, if somebobdy liberated me from a brutal dictator

Question remains same.
Did they want to be liberated from their ruler (for you let it be brutal and what so ever.).
Or you are happy in your dreams that you have done something great for these people by removing Saddam and these people should bend to salute you.

[Steve Wink]

Originally posted by R K Singh:

Question remains same.
Did they want to be liberated from their ruler (for you let it be brutal and what so ever.).
Or you are happy in your dreams that you have done something great for these people by removing Saddam and these people should bend to salute you.

Isn't it one of the areas of Iraq where a lot of the people who ran the previous regime live? If so, they won't see it as being liberated, more as having their lovely priviledged life and power taken from them. I'm sure staunch Nazis weren't too pleased at being liberated in 1945, or the Khmer Rouge pleased at the liberation of Cambodia.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by R K Singh:


Did they want to be liberated from their ruler (for you let it be brutal and what so ever.).
Or you are happy in your dreams that you have done something great for these people by removing Saddam and these people should bend to salute you.

I agree again; its obvious the people from that town did not want to be liberated. That's why I asked in my first post that the US cannot expect these people to ever accept democracy. For there to be democracy there has to be concern that 500,000 of your fellow citizens were executed by Baathists and Sadaam loyalists. These people of that region don't give a rat's ass about fellow Iraqis, they still support whatever is left of the murderous Baathist regime officials.

Do you not believe that removing Saadam from power was best for all the Iraqi people? Or do you believe in your dreams that the 500,000 people that Sadaam killed were not truly human?

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Nathan Thurm:

Still, residents say the secular origins of the Baath meant that many shunned Saddam's party in this city of 200,000 people, who overwhelmingly adhere to Wahhabism, the same strict sect of Sunni Islam that rules in Saudi Arabia. [ March 31, 2004: Message edited by: Nathan Thurm ]
[ March 31, 2004: Message edited by: Nathan Thurm ]

Gee, the media has pounded in my head that the very strict customs of the pious muslims require them to bury the dead promptly and not descrate the body. I guess Wahhabism is a little different? By the way Wahhabism is one of the fastest growing sects. The Saudis fund Wahhabist mosques and their propaganda throught the world, from the US to Asia. These Wahhabism seeds are just now beginning to sprout and haven't yet become very active. You guys ain't seen nothing yet. World wide terrorism will be increasing for the next 20 years and be around for much longer than that...

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Capablanca Kepler:
Paul,Don't generalize entire population from such incidance.

We're all adults here, we don't need sermons or platitudes or PC monitoring. Allow people at least one semi-public place where they can vent and condemn what can only be described as shockingly inhumane savage acts. We're all intelligent enough to know that they don't represent every Iraqi in Iraq. We're also inteligent to know that this was not the work of an isolated criminal gang or that it was some fluke (this isn't the first time dead bodies were descrated). We know that in the town and the region, a significant portion of the Iraqi population seem to support such acts. The fact is, those people, and there were many, were acting as savages and animals.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by herb slocomb:
We're all adults here, we don't need sermons or platitudes or PC monitoring.

Americans are racist.

[Nathan Thurm]

It's starting to make more sense to me now. The very consistent factor in all of this terrorism doesn't seem to be "land" or "politics" or even fanatic vs moderate but instead seems to be Wahhabism vs non-Wahhabism. And unfortunately, Wahhabism is more widespread than I realized.
http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory111802.asp

Schwartz: Wahhabism is official in Saudi Arabia. It is influential in Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. It has a substantial following in Yemen, which also has many Shia Muslims. It is unpopular in Bahrain and irrelevant in Oman.
Outside the Peninsula, Wahhabism is generally unpopular. But where trouble is found, Wahhabism may thrive. Hamas in Israel represents pure Wahhabism. Forms of neo-Wahhabi or Wahhabized ideology have been powerful in Egypt (the Muslim Brotherhood) and in Pakistan � in both countries neo-Wahhabis lead attacks on other Muslims and other faiths. But in both countries mainstream Muslim scholars continue to struggle against Wahhabism. Wahhabi aggression was defeated in Algeria and Tajikistan.
Wahhabi infiltration continues in Chechnya, to the detriment of the just struggle of the Chechens against Russian imperialism, and in Kashmir, where it is an obstacle to resolution of the conflict. Wahhabi extremism and terrorism continue to plague Nigeria, Uzbekistan, Indonesia, and the Philippines, although its real supporters in these countries are few in number.
But Wahhabi infiltration failed in Bosnia-Hercegovina and suffered a smashing repudiation in Kosovo. Albanian Muslims in Macedonia and Albania dislike Wahhabism, more intensely in the former than in the latter. Wahhabism and its surrogate, the Deobandi ideology of the Taliban, has been defeated in Afghanistan. Wahhabism has no real following in among the Muslim masses in Francophone West Africa, Morocco, Libya, the rest of Central Asia, India, or Malaysia.
As to other Middle Eastern regions and states: Saddam Hussein has used Wahhabism to give his regime an Islamic cover, but Wahhabism is deeply unpopular in Iraq.
Kurdistan is mainly Sufi in its Islam and aside from a handful of mercenary extremists, Kurds reject Wahhabism.
Syria, although a radical Arab state, is Islamically pluralist and rejects Wahhabism completely.
Jordan is ruled by Hashemites, who are traditional enemies of Wahhabism.
Turkish Muslims loathe Wahhabism because of its role in subverting the Ottoman caliphate.
Iran loathes Wahhabism as much or more, because of its massacres of Shias and wholesale destruction of Islamic holy sites, among other issues.
And other trouble spots: Sudan is a case unto itself, although Wahhabi influence has been present in the Khartoum regime.
Wahhabi infiltration is a serious problem in East Africa.
In the Western European immigrant Muslim communities, Wahhabism has a presence in France but has been weakened by the atrocities in Algeria. Britain has a loud Wahhabi, neo-Wahhabi, and Wahhabi-wannabe element but little real support for it among local Muslims. Wahhabism and Islamic extremism in general are weak in Germany, where most Muslims are Turkish and Kurdish.
Lopez: How much of a threat is it within our borders?
Schwartz: Unfortunately, the U.S. is the only country outside Saudi Arabia where the Islamic establishment is under Wahhabi control. Eighty percent of American mosques are Wahhabi-influenced, although this does not mean that 80 percent of the people who attend them are Wahhabis. Mosque attendance is different from church or synagogue membership in that prayer in the mosque does not imply acceptance of the particular dispensation in the mosque. However, Wahhabi agents have sought to impose their ideology on all attendees in mosques they control.
The entire gamut of "official" Islamic organizations in the U.S., particularly the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) are Wahhabi fronts. In other such groups, like the American Muslim Council (AMC) and the Muslim Students Association (MSA) Wahhabism is in crisis, because of the devastating effect of 9/11. In addition, the Wahhabis are deeply compromised by the exposure of individuals like John Walker Lindh, Richard Reid, Jos� Padilla, and John Muhammad.

[ April 01, 2004: Message edited by: Nathan Thurm ]

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by R K Singh:
Americans are racist.

If this is the best that you can come up with, I am disappointed. For you reference, here is something you ,perhaps, overlooked!

Originally posted by Herb Slocomb

We're all intelligent enough to know that they don't represent every Iraqi in Iraq.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:
[QB][/QB]

I have just repeated the herb's words thats all.
We're all intelligent enough to know that all ameriacns are not racist.
should we do generalisation because everyone knows that generalisation does not work ??

[frank davis]

Originally posted by R K Singh:

should we do generalisation because everyone knows that generalisation does not work ??

Incorrect, not all generalizations are inaccurate. That town and that region has always been generalized as being the most loyal to the mass murdering Baathists and Sadaam. All the evidence points points to this being an accurate generalization. Most of the native Iraqis who are doing the murdering now are coming from that region.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by herb slocomb:
That town and that region

Does ONLY that part and that region represnt Iraq ??

[Rufus BugleWeed]

Question remains same.
Did they want to be liberated from their ruler (for you let it be brutal and what so ever.).

The answer remains the same, they have not the capability to make that decision. Iraqis and Afghanistanis are going to be civilized members of world society unless they can change the will of George Bush. The costs of allowing anarchy in these countries has proven to be intolerable.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by R K Singh:

Does ONLY that part and that region represnt Iraq ??

No, of course not, but it is a significant part. And of course its not fair to generalize the entire Iraqi people based on that town. Paul is not stupid, he knows that to generalize a nation based on a town would not be an accurate generalization.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by herb slocomb:
Paul is not stupid,

Neither anyone of us is saying so.
Its just that Capa pointed out that such generalisation does not work.
It was neither sermon nor PC monitoring nor anyone's intelligence was being questioned.
It is just a plain fact.

[Sadanand Murthy]

The topic of this thread : "I have no sympathy for Iraqis". It doesn't say 'some Iraqis'. It doesn't say 'Iraqis from the Fallujah region'. It doesn't say 'Iraqis from the Sunni Triangle region'.
So this leads me to believe that the OP is referring to the entire Iraqi population of Iraq.

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

Sometimes, I feel as though I understand why Saddam had to gas his own people. These are not people, these are savage creatures..
[ March 31, 2004: Message edited by: Paul McKenna ]

This specific post refers to them as a nation, not as those belonging to a specific region. Besides, Saddam didn't gas his own people; his own people were Sunnis & Baathists. He didn't gas them. He gassed Kurds; and Shiites when they rose up against him following GW-1 on the assurances of Bush-1.
I do agree with Paul that the people who did this are savages; they are not animals because animals don't behave in a hateful manner like this. Animals behave instinctually. However, it still does not make all Iraqis savages. Yeah, yeah; no one mentioned 'all Iraqis'. But, as I said, the intent comes across to me (based on the topic & a couple of posts like Paul's quoted above) that this is what was meant. Maybe Paul didn't mean it. Seeing how this has generated so much controversy about whether he meant some/all Iraqis, why doesn't he say what he meant? Oh, but we are all intelligent people, so we don't need the authors to clarify their intent, right. Then why are we clamoring for other muslims to condemn such acts? Aren't we all intelligent enough to know that all muslims don't believe in such heinous acts?
Just had to get this off my chest.

[Rufus BugleWeed]

Then why are we clamoring for other muslims to condemn such acts? Aren't we all intelligent enough to know that all muslims don't believe in such heinous acts?

IIRC, Yassir Arafat experienced some arm twisting before he would condemn the acts of some Palestinians. We are clamouring for this comdemnation for it's value as peer/societal pressure. Some are clamouring for this comdemnation in hopes that it will not be spoken. An unruly mob in Fallujah has given GWB justification.

[Falana Dhimkana]

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

Did you look at the photos? KIDS!!! 10 years, 12 years old burning these corpses. If this is what children are taught, I'm not sure what kind of a future they will have.

Paul,
By your logic, Hindus must be worst kind of savages because in Nov 1984, govt sponsored murderers burnt alive thousands of Sikhs in the streets of New Delhi. Are you willing to say that a large majority of Hindus are savages?
And yes there were teenagers among the rioters in New Delhi.

[Axel Janssen]

American people get killed.
Being member of super-power can be lethal. (being spanish, tunesian or indonesian, too).
Those internal reactions are impossible to predict.
Its reason to do nothing and let cruel government do what they like?
Would it have been better to attack nazi germany in 1933 (year of Hitlers election)?
What would have been the result: Maybe 1000 years of nazis by heart in Germany, because of hate against external attack and Hitler as matyr of the "true will of the german people"?
When I remember pictures of Gulf War 2 those Iraqies looked like "objects". American soldiers were subjects. Advancing. Only in hospital Iraqies became subjects. But they were allways subjects. I mean: I am used to work with collegues from Middle East (Iran). I don't see Peyman as different from me. But when watching those pictures. All those brown skinned people. Do we really think of them them as individuals?
My most sincerest condolescense with the Americans
On the other hand: do we really understand whats going on in head of Iraqies when watching all this TV, reading all those newspapers, how high quality they might be?
I have strong doubt.
Axel
On the other hand: now afghan girls can go to school.