Hate and Anger
We have a proverb in Arabic, it says: a wet man doesn't fear the rain; it seems that the American administration believes in that a lot, since the world hates us, why care about more hate?
hate hate hate, its the only vibrations coming out of Arabs and Muslims towards America, once it was the land of the dreams, now its the land of injustice, the land of imperialism, the land of murderers, the land of fear and hate;a huge shift, in few years.
Bombing the shrine of Imam Ali, and bombing Falluja at the same time? You are unable to imagine the amounts of hate and anger people have towards America now, all because of stupid mistakes by one cowboy, Bosh.
i remember weeks ago, an unpleasant event put me in the fancy office, of an American personality, i can say that his position comes in the top ten in Iraq, then i had a talk with my poor British friend, who was offered a left by this guy, i will quote:
" he drives his car himself, doesn't allow the body guards to do it, he is always followed by another car carrying few more body guards, he got into the car, and put his machine gun in his lap, and kept his pistol in his right hand while he was holding the wheel with the left, he was pointing his gun on every car in front of him, then to avoid the traffic, he moved and started to drive 40 mi/h on the side walk, pointing his gun to the pedestrians to move, there was this women he was pointing his gun at her, it was terrible, do you call this security? i have never felt insecure in my whole life!"
" i can understand why Iraqis use violence, if i were one of these people he pointed the gun at i would be really angry "
that's among other details you don't want to hear.
anyway, this guy, has exactly the same mentality of Bush, "lets smoke 'em out", and its exactly the same policy that its being applied now, "smoke them out" that's how it works.
know what? In some moments, when i read the number of people killed b the so-called coalition everyday, i think that the occupation is digging its own grave, violence against people will NEVER worked, and NEVER will.
in away i am glad that the occupation is dropping the mask of "liberation" at least no one will be fooled now, they opened the door now, and if they think that by killing those in Najaf it will be closed, they are sadly mistaken.
only time will prove which is stronger: missiles or pride?
44 Comments
Dear Khalid,
talking about pride: what do you think will be the impact of al-Sistani's initiatives?
hang on in there,
Cecile
Thousand died also when the Americans invaded Iraq, did they not? Stray missiles, bullets, etc.
Pot and kettle...
I think it's time to remind people of the horrific circumstances in which this whole Muqtada scenario originated.
When Ayatollah Khoi arrived in Iraq, a group of al-Sadr's supporters not only killed the cleric, but also literally CHOPPED HIM INTO PIECES.
It seems likely to me that M's substantial girth ensued from his efforts to nurture and comfort himself after the untimely death of his father. Clearly, this traumatic event has deeply injured M who has become a loose cannon. Without the paternal guidance of his father, he is suffering from confusion and disorientation. He is impaired. And what law enforcement in the U.S. often calls an "EDP." That means an Emotional Disturbed Person.
Like it or not, Law Enforcement has to proceed carefully if only in order to avoid even worse chaos and violence.
--Button
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jeffrey ~ just where exactly in Khalid's post does Khalid say he "supports" any group at all?
Reality Check ~ mhm. too bad so many soldiers are trained to take pride in their work.
--Button ~ i agree, care is needed in order to avoid more chaos & violence. law "enforcement" is a most unfortunate term but i can't think of an alternative term without getting orwellian.
Khalid:
Pride is little solace to a grieving mother. Each human life should be a lot more precious to you than mere pride. That is why your attempts to excuse the acts of political violence by the opposition is very disheartening. The only way out of the mess in Iraq is for the opposition to be renounce such tactics and enter into the political system. Sistani is setting the example for the formation of a non-violent opposition.
Why is it the concept of a "loyal opposition" given so little weight in your country? With so many disparate political views in Iraq, any "just" goverment will need to be adept at political compromise.
If what you say is true about the American official driving like a maniac, he should be punished to the full extend of the applicable laws. His alleged acts, however, are a poor excuse to kill anyone.
Sorry, last post was me.
Mark In Chi-town
Jeffrey,
That's not an answer...
Yours truly,
Anonymous.
The problem is not with those who are hated, it is with those WHO DO THE HATING. The mindset of the America-haters is a problem of that mindset -ether Arab or otherwise. Casting blame on America and holding them to impossible standards you dont hold yourself to. That is unjustifed bigotry, unjustified hate. It is a good way to poison your own mind.
A perfect example was today. al-Sadr's militia fired a mortar into the mosque of Kufa and killed many people. Innocents died at the hands of al-Sadr's thugs.
It's easy to know this was due to al-Sadr because the coalition was not near there and because neither Iraqi police, ING, nor Americans use a notoriously inaccurate weapon as mortar, especially in cities. Only the 'insurgent' terrorists do. It was Mahdi army that killed a cleric in the shrine, that last year fired on Sistani guards in the shrine, that put weapons and fired mortars *from* the shrine ... and now have acutally bombed a mosque!
Who gets blamed for another mahdi army terrorist attack on Iraqi civilians, and another desecration of a mosque by extremic islamic militants? America, of course!
Link to Kufa mosque bombing story here
"violence against people will NEVER worked, and NEVER will."
Khalid, then why does al-Sadr practice it?
Why does Osama Bin Laden practice it?
Why does Hamas practice it?
Why does Hizbollah practice it?
Why does Abu Zarqawi practice it?
Surely you can take the time in your busy schedule to condemn the violence that al-Sadr visited on Najaf.
Surely you can take the time to condemn the bombings of oil pipelines that only make life worse for Iraq by stealing the money that would be used to build power plants and schools and hospitals?
Liberating IraqI will say one thing: Without the use of violence, Saddam would be in power in Iraq today. Is that what would make Khalid happy, to see the sadist Saddam back in power?
I'm going to call Bull-Sh*t on your story khalid jarrar.
You provide no names, no dates and offer no proof other that a story from a "friend".
What is it about Arab "culture" that encourages bluster and bullshit in your part of the world?
We have a word for people that tell lies in my country. We call them liars. We are also careful not to accept their word for anything in the future.
Apache
Khalid --
I feel Sistani will likely be a big player in the coming years. My question (and probably Cecile's) is ... is he going to bootlick the Americans, or is he for genuine Iraqi democracy? So far his actions seem those of a patriot ... but ... his operation in Britain really did have the most favourable timing for the US.
I wonder ...
Do you want to give us your current opinion of Sistani's position and role, Khalid?
He seems pivotal to Iraq's future.
--Bruno--
Jeffrey --
"Mehdi militia are the ones firing random mortars on the residential areas of Najaf."
I can imagine a fair amount of damage has been caused by the Medhi Army and their mortars. But, of course, this begs the question: who started offensive operations in the city of Najaf? Yep, you guessed it ... the US Army. It is like starting a bar brawl, and once the whole place is smashed up, blaming the other participants for all the damage they have caused. Besides, what is really more damaging to civilians and propery: airstrikes and artillery fire, or weeny 60 - 80 mm mortars? So, is the group dumping 100 - 200 kg bombs on a city the group you're supporting, Jeffrey?
--Bruno--
Reality Check --
"which is stronger: missiles or pride?"
You can support the invader, Reality Check. What Khalid really means is: does America have the balls to take thousands of casualties over the span of many years, without getting any revenues or results out of Iraq? The 'reality check' you ought to catch is that there is virtually no military solution to a well entrenched, popular insurgency short of genocide. The more Iraqis you kill, the more step up to take the fight to you. The only solution is a political one, and I suspect you won't like the attitude of a democratically elected Iraqi g'ment towards the US, especially given your actions since the invasion.
Regarding your statement "Pride goeth before a fall; --The Bible, Proverbs 16:18".
That cuts two ways, you do realise ... ?
--Bruno--
Mark --
"The only way out of the mess in Iraq is for the opposition to be renounce such tactics and enter into the political system."
Probably you are right. BUT ... the US to date has been manipulating the said political system to suit its own ends. Surely the insurgents are not so stupid to play the political card game when it is so heavily stacked against them? Besides, once the momentum of a popular insurgency is spent, it is very difficult to regain it. What if various parties are formed, and later are machinated out of the system? Then they lose.
Re. the US driver's behaviour: Let us for argument's sake, agree fully with Khalid's report on the man's behaviour.
Which laws will he be punished under, exactly? Iraqi laws do not apply to US personnel. And who would punish him? Iraqis have no jurisdiction over US personnel. So ... imagine a zealous Iraqi policeman witnessed this behaviour, and decided to report it. To whom would he report? The Americans? Imagine an American grunt being approached by an Iraqi (and, assuming there are no language barriers) being told he ought to arrest that driver, (assuming the Iraqi could actually identify this unknown man in an unmarked car) who is the grunt's general or superior.
Ha Ha Ha! Riiiight.
But, let us imagine that a fuss was actually made. (Stretching my belief here, I gotta admit) I can practically guarantee that all complaints would be dropped in the light of the danger to the driver from assassins and the ever-handy, ever-nebulous 'Rules of Engagement', assuming he ran somebody over.
US troops virtually have a license to kill in Iraq.
That's the reality.
--Bruno--
Patrick --
"al-Sadr's militia fired a mortar into the mosque of Kufa and killed many people. Innocents died at the hands of al-Sadr's thugs."
Umm ... that statement is, as far as I can tell from the latest reports, rubbish. Why on earth would AsSadr blow up a Mosque? Especially if it *were filled with his own supporters*?
As it was.
Care to back up this statement of yours?
And the rest of your posts are laughable.
The 'violence' Khalid refers to 'not working' means, of course, working to win people's trust and support. You have either misinterpreted or distorted his meaning. Which countries have visited the most violence on Iraqis and the ME? The organisations you name are mostly reactions to the violence that your heroes have brought to the region.
Bombing oil pipelines is sensible from a resistance point of view, because it deprives the puppet regime of oil revenues with which to pay Halliburton + Bechtel for their 'services'. Thus the US must haul cash out of its own pocket in order to pay for the occupation. Sounds good to me.
--Bruno--
Thanx Bruno, for reacting on the quite superficial comments of the patricks and the jeffreys. They must lack of sensitivity and of the phantasy to place themselves in the situation of khalid and the people around him. Indeed, my question was about what al-Sistani can mean in this troubled situation. It would already be very positive if his 'un-Sistani moves' (read: http://justzipit.blogspot.com/
would create a stop on violence.
Violence narrows thinking in any way.
Best wishes,
Cecile
I truly do not know how the world views Iraq. From my small corner in the world, I do not hate Iraq! I hate the violence, I hate the loss of lives of Iraqis and Americans. Your government is trying to establish some stable leadership to prepare for elections by the people in Jan. Why don't Iraqis support this? The sooner Iraq settles down, becomes stable and has its own military to defend it our trrops can come home. Why do Iraqis and others continue this war? Why do Iraqis keep killing Iraqis? Do you want Saddam back in power?
Cecile
many of the comments you refer to i actually think are sincere, although i also think they are motivated by misguided fear.
i am sorry, i know you will not like hearing this but imagination goes two ways.
Pat in NC
You ask why war continues. Khalid describes what he sees and hears, reading his post may help in answering part of your question.
Reality Check
> "Being proud to serve your country is not the same as being proud of sending thousands of disenfranchised, over-zealous boys to their deaths"
hmm, good point. reminds me of oh, what'zis name, the proud guy who sent all those over-zealous boys over to Iraq 'bout a year ago.
oh! a nibble - oop, ah to bad, just another one got away...
;)
heh, Reality Check
thought you had a sense of humour. oh well, too bad, guess i was mistaken. but speaking of trolls, this new bait i am using is very effective. so, now that i've caught one, what should i do with it?
btw Reality Check, why not go write on your own blog instead of trying to score with me?
Bruno:
You and I will have to agree to disagree with the amount of political manipulation the U.S. has or hasn't done in Iraq. This is a question for which hard evidence is very difficult to come by since true "manipulation" is by definition accomplished from behind the scenes.
As to the point about "opposition" groups renouncing political violence, the "people power" strategy of Sistani seems to be quite effective. It was also effective for Ghandi and brought down Milosevic in Yugoslavia. From a moral perspective, shouldn't Iraqis opposed to the IG try this way first?
If the "reisistance" groups could convince the masses of the public benefits flowing from their causes and were confident of the depths of their followings, they could attempt to mobilize the masses in the same peaceful way as Sistani. The fact that they reject such peaceful means of opposition to the IG speaks volumes concerning their confidence regarding those matters.
Reality Check
You didn't create your weblog to insult guests and "one-up" commenters? Why of course not, why would you create a blog for that when you can do it on somebody elses?
Get a funny-bone and get outa my hair.
Khallid Jarrar writes, "Bombing the shrine of Imam Ali, and bombing Falluja at the same time?"
The U.S. military didn't bomb the shrine of Imam Ali. If the U.S. military wanted to bomb the shrine of Imam Ali, there would be nothing at that site but a pile of rubble.
"You are unable to imagine the amounts of hate and anger people have towards America now, all because of stupid mistakes by one cowboy, Bush."
What "stupid mistakes" did Bush make? Getting rid of Saddam Hussein and his sons?
"...violence against people will NEVER worked, and NEVER will."
Saddam Hussein used violence against people (mainly Shiites and Kurds) to rule Iraq for 24 years. The U.S. military used violence against Saddam Hussein's government to drive them from power (and to kill Uday and Qusay). It looks to me like both those examples of violence worked.
"in away i am glad that the occupation is dropping the mask of "liberation" at least no one will be fooled now,..."
You don't think you're liberated? Do you really think that under Saddam Hussein, you would have been allowed to have a web log where you called Saddam, Uday, or Qusay a "cowboy," and stated that everyone in Iraq hated them?
"only time will prove which is stronger: missiles or pride?"
Missiles were stronger than Saddam, Uday, and Qusay's pride.
But why in the world would you support Muqtada al Sadr? Isn't he basically a thug, who uses armed men to force people to do exactly as he wants...and yet hides with guns in a holy place, to avoid being killed?
Mark Bahner
Where in the world did you read in Khalid's post that he "supports Muqtada al Sadr"? Nowhere in Khalid's post does it say this.
Reality Check
go run back to your hole before i get tired of playing with mice and delete you.
btw - thanks Reality Check
fantastic job, now Khalids post has reached 40 comments. thanks again for making this site look popular, heh, fish.
*groans*
goodbye.
btw, RC, there are facilities to delete your own comments if you feel embarrassed upon re~reading them (see trashcan icon below your comments).
"Where in the world did you read in Khalid's post that he "supports Muqtada al Sadr"? Nowhere in Khalid's post does it say this."
Well, the only reason that U.S. troops are anywhere near the Imam Ali shrine is because Muqtada al Sadr is (or was) inside, and because the both the central government of Iraq and the governor of Najaf wanted the U.S. troops there.
So if Khalid thinks that the U.S. troops are the bad guys in this matter, he must think that it's OK for Muqtada al Sadr to ignore both the Iraq central government and the governor of Najaf, and al Sadr can do whatever he wants.
By the way, a French news agency has apparently reported:
"Iraqi police found at least 25 burned and bloated bodies in the basement of a building used as al-Sadr's religious court in Najaf,..."
Bloomberg news report from NajafIf this is the case, and those 25 people were killed by al Sadr and his "court," does Khallid support having al Sadr tried for 25 counts of murder? Or does Khallid think that al Sadr's religious court has the legitimate authority to conduct trials and execute people?
"But why in the world would you support Muqtada al Sadr? Isn't he basically a thug, who uses armed men to force people to do exactly as he wants...and yet hides with guns in a holy place, to avoid being killed?"
I don't see Bush out there on the front lines...
Anonymous is my name
Mark Bahner
so, what you are telling me is that you have based all your comments here on speculation, paranoia and fear? how, um, llogical.
Emigre --
Let's see if these help you reach the 100 count without resorting to animal noises:
Cecile --
Thank You kindly for your remarks. I do my best.
Pat --
The sentiments you express in your letter are noble and sympathetic. However, the problem lies in this assumption : "Your government is trying to establish some stable leadership to prepare for elections by the people in Jan."
Simply, the Allawi government is not an Iraqi government, but an American proxy one. This is what Iraqis are fighting against. Elections in January? I'll believe it when I see it. Madtom, you are going to owe me a buck.
--Bruno--
Anonymous --
A thoughtful post like that surely deserves a name, no?
Your analysis on peaceful protest, its effectiveness and implications for the support base of the insurgency is good, and deserves a similar response.
Your view on political manipulation is probably correct. However, I was referring to the systems that the US had tried to impose and interfere with since coming into Iraq ... the Chalabi as Dictator plan, the Caucuses plan, the cancellation of municipal elections and the unilateral appointing of governing councils. That has been apparent to all so far. By extrapolating, given such blatant interference to date, it is naive to expect no covert manipulation of elections. Responses?
Firstly, your "From a moral perspective, shouldn't Iraqis opposed to the IG try this way first?" has a basis, but I disagree with it. If an invader comes into my country all guns blazing, killing and destroying ... I do NOT think one is morally obliged to offer up the most pacifist resistance possible. While it would be bonus points for Iraqis to try this way, I think that the US would simply ignore them and count on the hunger pangs to drive the desperate to its arms. Besides, Texans and Oklahomans are quite capable of keeping the refineries running if needs be.
Furthermore, do you remember the initial efforts at peaceful protest, those ones met by bullets? Remember Fallujah? That is what can easily happen to Iraqi protests if they get on the nerves of the 'Coalition'.
I have to say "horses for courses". Iraq is not India, nor are Iraqis Indians.
The resistance is fragmented and has conflicting views on how to fight the occupation. I doubt that such a consensus could be reached amongst fractious Iraqis. You are implying that the insurgents lack the support (hence legitimacy) amongst the populace to sustain the fight against the US. Again, this is hard to quantify, but it is a well known rule of thumb of guerilla warfare that the people are the 'sea' in which the guerilla 'fish' swim. If the people are hostile, the guerillas get stomped. The success of the insurgents against the anti Iraqi forces indicates to me that there is a considerable support base for the fighters.
--Bruno--
Jeffrey --
Great commentary!
Awesome analysis!
Your fervent support for Big Lad, erhm ... hard harry ... I mean ... Mark Bahner almost slipped by me amongst all the other sheep there. Keep sending them thar 'ol proxies this way, huh?
Good to see you engaging in 'debate' once more.
Mark Bahner --
Much of the city around the shrine is destroyed. The shrine of Imam Ali itself has been hit by shrapnel. The sacred Valley of Peace has been scarred by US bombs and bullets. This is excluding all the other damage inflicted on Iraq. Are these not mistakes and blunders?
Your argument assumes that the mere fact that the US deposed Saddam & co. entitles you to some sort of immense gratitude from Iraqis. That you can now simply come in and take over, and it is all justified. Sorry, buddy, it doesn't work that way.
Your 'violence works' routine might work better if you had taken into account the fact that I had already responded to it earlier. But that's OK, I'll repeat myself:
"The 'violence' Khalid refers to 'not working' means, of course, working to win people's trust and support. You have either misinterpreted or distorted his meaning. Which countries have visited the most violence on Iraqis and the ME?"
"Missiles were stronger than Saddam, Uday, and Qusay's pride. "
And they are stronger than humvees and helicopters. Bummer, huh?
Onwards...
"Well, the only reason that U.S. troops are anywhere near the Imam Ali shrine is because Muqtada al Sadr is (or was) inside, and because the both the central government of Iraq and the governor of Najaf wanted the U.S. troops there."
Now this is just stupid. The ''central government of Iraq" doesn't draw breath unless the US gives the go-ahead. When were they elected? The only sort of excuse for US feet in Najaf is that arrest warrant issued against AsSadr. Egad! The police are not doing their job, so send in a foreign army?
Hey, I hear there are plenty of arrest warrants in the US that are not executed. Crime is out of control in your cities! Something must be done! What if Iraqis gather up an army of mujahadeen and smoke out these criminals and gangsters? They will only destroy a few small city blocks, but cause no real damage, I promise. But the gangs will be routed! And ... I expect gratitude from you lot over there, OK?
Does that sound kind of wierd? Now apply it to Iraq, and you'll see where I'm coming from.
"Iraqi police found at least 25 burned and bloated bodies in the basement of a building used as al-Sadr's religious court in Najaf,..."
Aha! Decisive proof that they were killed by AsSadr! They definitely have no connection to the foreign army of occupation that loves to drop bombs into civilian areas. Only the Madhi Army kills Iraqis. Riiight.
"Or does Khallid think that al Sadr's religious court has the legitimate authority to conduct trials and execute people?"
No that does not make sense. Let's try this:
"Or does Mark think that Bush's neocon clique has the legitimate authority to conduct unilateral invasions and kill Iraqis ?"
Muuuuch better.
--Bruno--
I wrote, "But why in the world would you support Muqtada al Sadr? Isn't he basically a thug, who uses armed men to force people to do exactly as he wants...and yet hides with guns in a holy place, to avoid being killed?"
Anonymous replied, "I don't see Bush out there on the front lines..."
Yes, Bush isn't on the front lines...but Bush isn't hiding in a church. Let alone St. Peter's Basilica, or something comparable.
Emigre asks me, "so, what you are telling me is that you have based all your comments here on speculation, paranoia and fear?"
I "speculated" that perhaps the 25 burned and bloated bodies that the Iraqi police found in Al Sadr's "court" building were killed as a result of "court" proceedings. There are other possible explanations, but that is probably the most logical one.
One thing that's NOT speculation is that Al Sadr already been indicted for murder (of Sayyed Abdel Majid al-Khoei). So another question would be, "Does Khallid support Al Sadr being tried for his alleged part in that crime, or does Khallid think Al Sadr needn't face trial for an occasional murder of a rival cleric?"
As for your "paranoia" and "fear"...those are laughable. I have no "paranoia" or "fear" about what's happening in Iraq.
Mark Bahner said:
"Well, the only reason that U.S. troops are anywhere near the Imam Ali shrine is because Muqtada al Sadr is (or was) inside, and because the both the central government of Iraq and the governor of Najaf wanted the U.S. troops there."
The "central government" of Iraq only "rules" Green Zone. Alawi, a former CIA stooge, is now a Negroponte's puppet.
AF
The Sistani Puzzle. Did The Grand Ayatollah Collude With The US Assault On Najaf?I would like to know what you (the people of this blob) think about this article. I will post my opinion to, but I would like to listen first.
Aquele abraço!
Alvaro Frota
Alvaro Frota writes, "The "central government" of Iraq only "rules" Green Zone. Alawi, a former CIA stooge, is now a Negroponte's puppet."
Well, who is the leader of the legitimate government of Najaf? Muqtada al Sadr? Or someone else?
Post a Comment
<< Home