Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 05/17/2004 View Sun 05/16/2004 View Sat 05/15/2004 View Fri 05/14/2004 View Thu 05/13/2004 View Wed 05/12/2004 View Tue 05/11/2004
1
2004-05-17 Iraq-Jordan
Car Bomb Attack Kills Iraq Governing Council Head
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Phil B 2004-05-17 3:55:30 AM|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [779 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Savages!
Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-05-17 4:07:23 AM|| [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1133085/posts]  2004-05-17 4:07:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 "Islam is Peace" Says President
Remarks by the President at Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., September 16, 2001

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much for your hospitality. We've just had wide-ranging discussions on the matter at hand. Like the good folks standing with me, the American people were appalled and outraged at last Tuesday's attacks. And so were Muslims all across the world. Both Americans and Muslim friends and citizens, tax-paying citizens, and Muslims in nations were just appalled and could not believe what we saw on our TV screens.

These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it's important for my fellow Americans to understand that.

The English translation is not as eloquent as the original Arabic, but let me quote from the Koran, itself: In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do evil. For that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule.

The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war.

When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that's made brothers and sisters out of every race -- out of every race...

Women who cover their heads in this country must feel comfortable going outside their homes. Moms who wear cover must be not intimidated in America. That's not the America I know. That's not the America I value.

I've been told that some fear to leave; some don't want to go shopping for their families; some don't want to go about their ordinary daily routines because, by wearing cover, they're afraid they'll be intimidated. That should not and that will not stand in America.

Those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don't represent the best of America, they represent the worst of humankind, and they should be ashamed of that kind of behavior.

This is a great country. It's a great country because we share the same values of respect and dignity and human worth. And it is my honor to be meeting with leaders who feel just the same way I do. They're outraged, they're sad. They love America just as much as I do
Posted by Muslim Lover 2004-05-17 4:40:59 AM||   2004-05-17 4:40:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Muslim Lover,
What are you trying to achieve by posting the same message over and over again?
Posted by Anonymous4617 2004-05-17 4:44:08 AM||   2004-05-17 4:44:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Number one puppet succesfully deleted, I wouldn't regret the loss of a Nazi collaborator if I where Iraqi.
Posted by Murat 2004-05-17 4:46:48 AM||   2004-05-17 4:46:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Murat,

I am all for bringing Saddam Hussein back. How about you?
Posted by Anonymous4617 2004-05-17 4:49:34 AM||   2004-05-17 4:49:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 That's not up to me Anonymous4617, let the Iraqi people vote, seems they don't like the American "democratic" form of appointing interim Puppet Governments.

Let's be clear on this one, I am not Iraqi but if I where I would resist occupation too till my last heartbeat, what would you guys do if the Russians occupied the US because they don't like Bush hypothetically?
Posted by Murat 2004-05-17 5:11:46 AM||   2004-05-17 5:11:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 I have a better idea. I am for making Saddam the leader of the Turks. BTW, Murat the article about honor killings has given us fine examples of Turkish "honor" and "morality".
Posted by JFM  2004-05-17 5:15:11 AM||   2004-05-17 5:15:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 At least we have "honor" and "morality", you lack them both
Posted by Murat 2004-05-17 5:32:05 AM||   2004-05-17 5:32:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Murat,

How are they going to vote? if the Sunnis, who really want Saddam back, are not killing them, then the foreing "freedom" fighters or the different shiia fanatics are. No, Saddam has to come back and unify them!
I am not an Iraqi either but I live in Saudi Arabia and the advise of some Saudis to some of the Iraqis here left over from Gulf War 1 is : get Saddam back and your country will be peaceful again. Do you not think it has certain logic to it?
Posted by Anonymous4617 2004-05-17 5:33:45 AM||   2004-05-17 5:33:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 So Murat, you've put the United States into the same category as Hitler's Germany?

That's a fine piece of logic. With the gas chambers roaring and people being marched into concentration camps here everyday, I can see how you would come to such a conclusion.

Tell me Murat, what were you calling the people who "collaborated" with Saddam when he was killing 300,000 people and tossing them into mass graves? Patriots? Friends of yours?

Posted by RMcLeod  2004-05-17 5:41:13 AM||   2004-05-17 5:41:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 "At least we have "honor" and "morality", you lack them both", says Murat.

Well, it is called for some reason "honor killing", but it is in fact "shame murder", and shamefull practice it is... blaming victim instead of the perpetrator, with the terminal effect on the victim. And you have the gull to call this morality?
Posted by rsd  2004-05-17 5:48:22 AM||   2004-05-17 5:48:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Anonymous4617,

As I said, I don't care if Iraqis want Saddam back it's their bussiness, and if they want Muqtada al Sadr it's fine for me too, at least it would be the will of the Iraqi people and not a puppet government installed by an occupying power.

You guys bring up that Saddam was a murder, lunatic, whatever... all of that is true but it doesn't justify the installation of a puppet government. I don't think different about Saddam, but again that's not up to me nor the Americans, the Iraqis themselve have to choose their leader
Posted by Murat 2004-05-17 6:03:12 AM||   2004-05-17 6:03:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 #4 Number one puppet succesfully deleted, I wouldn't regret the loss of a Nazi collaborator if I where Iraqi.

but you are Turkish and eermm in 1938, Turkey navigated a treacherous course to neutrality throughout the war under Ýsmet Ýnönh, when neutral Istanbul became a major spy center Turkey did not repeat the same mistake that it had made in 1914 and remained neutral until the end of the war however, there were certain concessions made to the Axis powers, such as the 1942 Capital Levy on Jews and Christians . makes your father and his friends nazi collaborators dont it Murat . Hypocrital git dont even know his own history
Posted by MacNails 2004-05-17 6:09:20 AM||   2004-05-17 6:09:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 That's not up to me Anonymous4617, let the Iraqi people vote, seems they don't like the American "democratic" form of appointing interim Puppet Governments

Listening to what you are saying, if we apply it to us here, that means were someone to gun Kerry down, we can safely assume the people of the Unite States do not like what Kerry has been saying, right?

The 'people' of Iraq has no more spoken with this attack, than the democratic party speaks for the rest of us.
Posted by badanov  2004-05-17 6:14:12 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org]  2004-05-17 6:14:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 Bush is about to get into a lot of political trouble with me. I can always stay home in November if he insists on negotiating with these folks while they continue to murder.

It is clear that negotiating with terrorists such as Al Sadr is not working; it is time to take off the gloves and put these folks down for good.
Posted by badanov  2004-05-17 6:18:23 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org]  2004-05-17 6:18:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 Murat,

Just like you, Murat, I frankly do not give a flying f@#$ about Iraqis, being gassed, mutilated, dismembered, poisoned, physically tortured, experimented on, etc. I say, you are right! Since, they "elected" Saddam in the first place (do you remember the name of the other candidate running against Saddam when he was first elected?), why not give them the right to elect him or somebody like him again. I think, just like in the past, they are free to express their opinions and chose appropiately, do you not think so?
Posted by Anonymous4617 2004-05-17 6:21:51 AM||   2004-05-17 6:21:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 Murat is a coward. He was nowhere to be found when Sadaam was hiring men to rape women and grind his own people through paper shredders. Now he's Mr. Big Man who bravely demands that we apologize for abuses that pale in comparison. Meanwhile, he extends his sympathies for the people who cut heads off. He knows we won't send secret police out to his house, so he puffs his chest and blathers on like the rest of them. Maybe if he gets really mad, he'll strap on an exploding penis and go blow up some babies on school bus.

Murat, the Purveyor of Peace, and the other fools like him are the reason that our population will eventually have to take off our gloves and fight a much less humane war. We are still trying every way we know how to avoid that, even as the Murats egg us on.
Posted by B 2004-05-17 6:43:15 AM||   2004-05-17 6:43:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 Since, they "elected" Saddam in the first place (do you remember the name of the other candidate running against Saddam when he was first elected?), why not give them the right to elect him or somebody like him again. I think, just like in the past,

First Saddam did grab the power, he was not elected, there you are right, but strangly that did not bother the US at first as long as he played according pro American rules. Anyway be it a Saddam, Saddik or Saddok the Iraqis should choose. If you guys propagate 'democracy', you should act to that and not install a remote controlled puppet government and call it Sweet democracy.

So said I don't blame those Iraqis when they blow up those collaborators, I would have done the same.

Funny thing is June 30 is comming closer and your puppet needs a few stiches to keep him together. :)
Posted by Murat 2004-05-17 6:52:27 AM||   2004-05-17 6:52:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 Muslim lover - why do you keep reprinting this when it only highlights the difference between your "bad people" and our "bad people".

some don't want to go about their ordinary daily routines because, by wearing cover, they're afraid they'll be intimidated

Sure we have some mean people who give women dirty looks. But Islam has an entire army who wants to blow us up as we go about our daily routines. We're tired of you asking for our sympathy for "intimidation" and then excusing an army of savages.

It's not working anymore. We understand that many Muslims are good people. But now we understand that many are not. Chanting "the religion of peace" over and over and over again won't make us fail to notice the barbarism committed in the name of Islam.

You can keep chanting it though, if it makes you happy. But it's not doing anything but making this comparison ever more clear.
Posted by B 2004-05-17 6:57:38 AM||   2004-05-17 6:57:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 First Saddam did grab the power, he was not elected, there you are right, but strangly that did not bother the US at first as long as he played according pro American rules

Reading from the Socialist International playbook, are you?

Saddam took power in 1969, a time when radical Islam was an amusement amoungst academics, and when Arabs had the good sense not to attack the USA.

911 changed all that, and it changed our priorities.

Of course with socialists like Murat, 911 was a justified attack, right Murat? You believe that Americans had it coming,right, Murat.

You believe that this Iraq politician had it coming too, right? You believe in murdering Americans is okay, and any one perceived to be their puppet gets a pass for murder, right, Murat?

You fully support active terrorist operations, right Murat?

Let us know something, Murat. Inquiring minds wanna know.
Posted by badanov  2004-05-17 7:00:31 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org]  2004-05-17 7:00:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 So said I don't blame those Iraqis when they blow up those collaborators, I would have done the same

Well, I'm glad that at least you'll understand when we are forced to do it to you.
Posted by annon 2004-05-17 7:03:37 AM||   2004-05-17 7:03:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 
So said I don't blame those Iraqis when they blow up those collaborators, I would have done the same.


Ah. So you are on the other side.

No big shock, there, Murat. Nice to see you've finally admitted it.
Posted by Robert Crawford  2004-05-17 7:07:45 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/]  2004-05-17 7:07:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 Badanov (former Russian communist, nowadays liberal converted American)

What's that crap of 911, what has it to do with Iraq, even Pinokio I mean Bush admitted there was no link.

Fighting terrorism is a way different than torturing Abu Graib prissoners and occupying oil fields.
Posted by Murat 2004-05-17 7:14:07 AM||   2004-05-17 7:14:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 Murat - yawn to your mindless, meaningless blather. Why don't you go get an AK47 and go take on some bayonets?
Posted by B 2004-05-17 7:16:28 AM||   2004-05-17 7:16:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 You're particularly stupid today Murat. Re-read badanov:

911 changed all that, and it changed our priorities.


In those changed priorities was an unwillingness to let the Iraq situation continue down the path it had been going. You might remember the no-fly zones, the embargo, the specially protected area for the Kurds...
Posted by Robert Crawford  2004-05-17 7:17:57 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/]  2004-05-17 7:17:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 Murat,
I was being sarcastic. I know all that, since this is my 7th year in the Middle East. The irony that you fail to grasp is that the power that gave the Iraqis the opportunity to choose and elect is the one you want to see destroyed.
I have never said that the US is doing what is doing in Iraq purely on a altruistic basis. If Sept 11th would have not happened, Iraq and Afghanistan would have not been invaded. It is the survival of the US at stake and it will do what it takes to guarantee this survival (any country, including yours, would do the same). Now, if in the process of guaranting its survival, the US gets rid of 2 or 3 murderous dictators, why would you oppose this? Why would you not help the people of Iraq to get a shot a creating a society where they are not afraid to protest, elect, speak their minds, decide on their future, etc? Unless you think that the various groups fighting the Allied troops and murdering iraqis citizen just trying to rebuild their country or continue with their normal lives (remember the 14 children who were burned to death on a school bus/) are better for Iraq than those who are trying to rebuild it. If that is what you believe, then there is nothing else to say.
Posted by Anonymous4617 2004-05-17 7:30:43 AM||   2004-05-17 7:30:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 Ahh, Murat, you fell into trap.

This IS badanov.
Posted by badanov  2004-05-17 7:31:01 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org]  2004-05-17 7:31:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#28 I'm confused. Murat's comments give me the impression that during World War Two it was the Turks who fought against Hitler and it was the Americans who remained neutral.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-05-17 7:42:45 AM||   2004-05-17 7:42:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#29 Murat, since you claim it wasn't your business when Sadaam imposed his brutal will on the Iraqi people, why do you suddenly find it your business when the Americans do it?

But thanks for further clarifying for us what that Muslim "honor" is all about. It is indeed a difficult concept for us to grasp as your definition of "honor" has a meaning so different from our own.
Posted by B 2004-05-17 8:27:59 AM||   2004-05-17 8:27:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#30 One thing that shitheads like murass and the rest of the insane left need to do is a simple exercise. Just think about what the world would be like if America was as bad as Nazi Germany. Have any of you mouth-breathing lefties thought about that? The US has the most powerful military this world has ever seen. We can bring to bear more destructive force than any 4 nations combined. If we wanted to destroy our enemies, we could. If we wanted to take all the oil, we could. If we were as bad as the Nazi's, like you teet-sucking, mono-browed freaks think, we would have invaded Canada and taken their oil years ago. We would have nuked Turkey and France for their betrayals. So you morally repugnant little shitheads, do you *really* think you want us to be as bad as you believe?

idiots.
Posted by AllahHateMe 2004-05-17 8:41:29 AM||   2004-05-17 8:41:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#31 B,
"Murat, since you claim it wasn't your business when Sadaam imposed his brutal will on the Iraqi people, why do you suddenly find it your business when the Americans do it?"
Excellent question! I suspect she/he cares out pure anti-americanism. She/he would rather see Iraqis murdered and tortured by somebody like Saddam than Americans taking credit for doing something good. Sad, very sad.
Posted by Anonymous4617 2004-05-17 8:49:32 AM||   2004-05-17 8:49:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#32 AllahHateMe,
Not just the insane left but muslims around the world need to do that exercise. I use your arguments with muslims or leftists when they talk about the israeli/Palestinian conflict. I tell them that, if the Israelis were as bad as they say they are, the palestinian problem would not be a problem because they would not be any palestinians left to complain about it.
Posted by Anonymous4617 2004-05-17 8:59:53 AM||   2004-05-17 8:59:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#33 "Turks Change Laws In Serious Effort to Suppress Honor Killings"

"#8 At least we have "honor" and "morality", you lack them both
Posted by: Murat 2004-05-17 5:32:05 AM "

Please elaborate on this Honor,morality thing you are talking about,Murat.
.... a 15-year-old ... slashed her with a meat cleaver...
.... brothers...shooting their 22-year-old sister....
....Halitogullari confessed to strangling his 14-year-old daughter...with a wire, after she had been kidnapped on her way home and sexually assaulted for six days. ....

Now what is this thing you were saying about Turkish honor and morality,Murat?

How can you see past that 8x8 mine timber in your eye,Murat?


Posted by Raptor 2004-05-17 9:44:21 AM||   2004-05-17 9:44:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#34 Murat, since you claim it wasn't your business when Sadaam imposed his brutal will on the Iraqi people, why do you suddenly find it your business when the Americans do it?

Most varieties of nationalism give a bizarre sanctity to the idea of the nation-state in which even brutal internal dictators are somehow less bad than (even relatively benevolent) external occupation, native tyrants less evil than (even relatively benevolent) colonialism, and so forth and so forth.

Since I'm not a nationalist, you'll have to find someone else to explain the twisted reasoning behind this though.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-05-17 10:01:45 AM||   2004-05-17 10:01:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#35 Nice question Anonymous4617,

My problem is not Saddam himself, but Iraq, if you guys want to rid yourself from Saddam that's fine with me no objections, but he was not the reason.

You brought up a lot of shit, like liberating Iraq from a dictator, WMD weapons etc. etc, all big lies just to justify occupation. If Saddam was the problem he could have easily be targeted, occupation would have been unnecesarry. But Saddam was just an excuse.
Posted by Murat 2004-05-17 10:09:25 AM||   2004-05-17 10:09:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#36 Oh hi Aris, it's you....I want you to hear this, and hear it good....

Did you hear that?

That sound you heard was the sound of what I think of you and your meaningless self-important blather. That sound you heard was also response the response that I think you deserve for your ...yawn... adolescent ideas.
Posted by B 2004-05-17 10:12:22 AM||   2004-05-17 10:12:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#37 B, your tactic of calling "meaningless" and "self-important blather" all the things that you are too dim to understand is becoming quite tiresome.

If you think that my words deserve the sound of silence, then that could be accomplished quite a bit more easily if you actually *stayed* silent.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-05-17 10:22:02 AM||   2004-05-17 10:22:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#38 B, I think in this case Aris was just putting an idea forward; I don't see him actually promoting it there (though if he was, you can bet I'd be happy to help come down on him like a load of bricks).

The point you're missing, Murat, is that there is a better way to run a government. Elections are ultimately more honorable when run cleanly, for they make the leaders accountable to the people - something that the Arab world knows nothing about. And before you yell me down, let me point to the palaces of the House of Saud (and that's not even mentioning their other excesses), and the uncountable luxuries that Saddam and his closest associates enjoyed while the people suffered because of UN sanctions. If he'd done the responsible thing and distributed that money to the people, the sanctions wouldn't have been half as bad. But Saddam kept it all for himself. I will grant you that elections are sometimes played with, but nothing's perfect. Bombing a council is not a legitimate way of expressing your dissatisfaction - that's what we're trying to teach them. Vote in who you like, but remember that if you don't like them, you can always vote them out come next election. And if that happens, they must go. That's moral. That's honor. You try and do it that way in Turkey; why do you not want to see it repeated in other places?
Posted by The Doctor 2004-05-17 10:26:05 AM||   2004-05-17 10:26:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#39 Isn't it cute how the Doctor always comes to Aris' rescue. Fooling no one but yourself, Aris.
Posted by The Nurse 2004-05-17 10:31:21 AM||   2004-05-17 10:31:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#40 Doctor> Since I called it "twisted reasoning", I was clearly not promoting the nationalistic belief in the sanctity of the nation-state above even the question of brutality or benevolence.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-05-17 10:32:39 AM||   2004-05-17 10:32:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#41 Nurse, if you are actually claiming that I'm The Doctor, then you are just wacko.

I'll ask Fred, if he could have the IPs of posters show, in order for it to be clear that I'm me and only me, and only post with my actual real-life name.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-05-17 10:34:45 AM||   2004-05-17 10:34:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#42 Nurse, I'm not trying to come to his defense, I'm simply trying to be fair. I disagree with a lot of what he says, but I'm sure people disagree with what I say. But I expect that when I make a stupid point people will call me on it and explain why I'm wrong instead of simply insulting me, and I'm trying to extend that same courtesy.

And just for your information, I don't have nurses. I have companions.
Posted by The Doctor 2004-05-17 10:36:40 AM||   2004-05-17 10:36:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#43 And how dare you suggest I'm someone else! I am the Doctor, the genuine article, one might say, and unless someone's hijacked my name I speak for no one but myself. I could post under my real name if I wanted, but, hey, only on the Internet can one at least start to fulfill a boyhood fantasy of emulating one's hero. *Grins*.
Posted by The Doctor 2004-05-17 10:39:06 AM||   2004-05-17 10:39:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#44 I'll confirm that. Aris and I go back almost 2 years. Aris is Aris and he has never trolled under a diff name. I read his posts and most others and would notice if he is trolling himself.
Posted by Phil B  2004-05-17 10:41:13 AM||   2004-05-17 10:41:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#45 Hey Guys,
No reason to get excited about Murat, he simply forgot to take his lithium today.
also please understand that Murat is basically pissed off since he did not get to kill a defenceless Armenian or a freedom-loving Kurd today, which makes him grumpy.
Murat, dahling, before spewing nonesense about puppet governments, clean your house first!!!
Posted by The Dodo 2004-05-17 11:05:49 AM||   2004-05-17 11:05:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#46 And for what it's worth, while Aris's nationalism theory is interesting, I think it's something far simpler. David Pryce-Jones puts it best in his excellent book The Closed Circle:

"For at least a generation, 'imperialism' as a metaphor hid the extent to which nationalism lacked political or social foundations in reality. Nationalism . . . manipulated with supreme skill by Nasser and others, served to legitimie aspiring one-man rulers in their bid for power. Listening, approving, conceding, the colonial powers released themselves from their responsibilities to the Arab masses - those masses, who according to the American social scientist Morroe Berger, 'really believe in their inalienable right to be exploited by people of their own nationality.'"

I'm only about halfway through the book (that quote comes from the introduction alone, and the rest of it is just as good), but I highly recommend it.
Posted by The Doctor 2004-05-17 11:27:04 AM||   2004-05-17 11:27:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#47 The only thing left for Murat to do is pick up an AK47 and join his brothers in arms.
Posted by Rafael 2004-05-17 12:37:48 PM||   2004-05-17 12:37:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 The Doctor has been here for a few months and is definitely not Aris.
Posted by 11A5S 2004-05-17 12:50:20 PM||   2004-05-17 12:50:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 Thank you, all, for the kind affirmation of my identity; I was worried for a second there.
Posted by The Doctor 2004-05-17 1:08:53 PM||   2004-05-17 1:08:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 Murat told "At least we have 'honor' and 'morality', you lack them both"

I could respect honor killers of their raped daughters if they had gone after the raper of their daughter and hanged him by the balls. But the stories given in another article today show _none_ of your Turkish honor killers has gone after the man. They only go for the girl. It is so much safer. In my book a man who has such concept of honor does not deserve to be called a man, even a cowardly one.

So spare me your Turkish honor.
Posted by JFM  2004-05-17 2:29:37 PM||   2004-05-17 2:29:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 Let's be clear on this one, I am not Iraqi but if I where I would resist occupation too till my last heartbeat,..

At least we know who he stands with: Saddam Hussein.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-05-17 2:38:27 PM||   2004-05-17 2:38:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 At least we know who he stands with: Saddam Hussein.

Saddam didn't resist to his last heartbeat.
Posted by Charles  2004-05-17 2:48:59 PM||   2004-05-17 2:48:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 Yea Murat you will resist right up untill the rifle was put in your face.
Posted by djohn66 2004-05-17 3:14:03 PM||   2004-05-17 3:14:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 Hi Aris. Interesting post (#34).

But why would Murat want to defend Iraq's misguided nationalistic acceptance of tyranny. Isn't Murat a Turk? Were you calling Murat's reasoning twisted? That was unclear. And are you saying that nationalists will defend nationalism as a supreme "value," regardless of their own national origin? Do you think some Iraqis, like the Kurds, view the Americans as aids in establishing their true national identity, rather then one imposed on them by a dictator, like Saddam, or by the dictator-like insurgents?

(On a personal note: you are being somewhat attack-oriented and defensive, but generally much less caustic and frenzied, which is a good thing.)
Posted by ex-lib 2004-05-17 3:51:07 PM||   2004-05-17 3:51:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 Saddam didn't resist to his last heartbeat.

Murat probably wouldn't either. Murat's motivation seems to be resisting for the sake of resisting, without giving any thought as to just what exactly what's at stake. He doesn't care that Iraq is in a shambles, only that it is "occupied" and that occupation must be resisted at any cost. No one in Iraq is going to make the jump from being under the thumb of a dictator to full responsible democracy overnight, yet Murat seems to think this is precisely how Iraq should be handled. The likely result of this sort of sink-or-swim approach would simply be that some other individual would probably end up seizing power and it would be Saddam Lite, or worse, Saddam II. What we're trying to do is set Iraq on the right path, and to help it along until a point is reached where it can do what it needs to do on its own, and Murat needs to get that through his thick skull. The alternative would only mean that we'd have to return at some point in the future to clean it out again. But, having done it once and not solved the problem, I for one would be more supportive of simply turning Iraq into one big sheet of Trinitite instead of expending more American lives to rescue them from themselves yet again.

Of course, Murat's not an Iraqi, and probably doesn't give a shit what happens to Iraq anyway.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-05-17 4:40:27 PM||   2004-05-17 4:40:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 So, if the Turks are not part of Euroland, why have I got five Kebab shops in my town? I don't even like Kebabs.
Posted by rhodesiafever 2004-05-17 4:48:58 PM||   2004-05-17 4:48:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 Amazing the waste of time spent on Murat. The fact is we have two enemies. Each needs to be confronted differently. The first is terrorism, and we have a globar war underway to deal with it. The second enemy is the global left, brought to life by Soviet propoganda and somehow still kicking.

We'll, as we now see, the global left is a big a problem as terrorism itself. The left lends defacto support to terrorists through enemy on my enemy is my friend logic, and they destroy economies and enslave people in poverty.

It is time to declare WAR ON THE GLOBAL LEFT. The Murats of the world cannot be argued with. They need to be marginilized, ridiculed, ignored, but most of all it need to be pointed out that THEY ARE THE ENEMY.
Posted by ne1469 2004-05-17 5:13:04 PM||   2004-05-17 5:13:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 I almost hate to say it, but ne's right. It's an internal war as much as it is an external one. We'll rot from the inside if we don't clean out those who would turn against us.
Posted by The Doctor 2004-05-17 5:18:07 PM||   2004-05-17 5:18:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 Thanks Doc-- one thing I'd like to argue is the idea that the left is an "internal" enemy. They are global, and pose as much a threat to others.

Take the reaction of the Indian stock market to the election of the Congress party. The Congress party will hold power only at the mercy of the communists in the government.

The result of this was a 20% drop in the Indian markets over the last two trading days. BILLIONS of shareholder dollars lost, economic growth will slow, poverty will decrease at a slower rate.

Posted by ne1469 2004-05-17 5:27:58 PM||   2004-05-17 5:27:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 ex-lib> But why would Murat want to defend Iraq's misguided nationalistic acceptance of tyranny. Isn't Murat a Turk? Were you calling Murat's reasoning twisted? That was unclear. And are you saying that nationalists will defend nationalism as a supreme "value," regardless of their own national origin?

There are varieties and varieties of nationalists. There's the imperialistic nationalists who don't mind the violation of other nation's sovereignties as long as their own country's sovereignty is held satrosanct. But then again there exist those branches of nationalism which claim themselves "anti-imperialists", and their defining attitude seems to be rejection of any international interference in domestic affairs. They needn't act aggressively against other countries, but will often express nationalism through their attempts to culturally stifle other ethnic groups and foreign religions in their home soil.

I've heard the above categories of nationalist also described as "aggressive" and "defensive" nationalism. When aggressive nationalism is dominant in a country, usually a strong defeat and humbling will turn it defensive -- I have heard it said (for example) that this happened in Greece back in the 20s with the Asia Minor catastrophe and the destruction of the 'Great Idea'. Since then Greece is as nationalistic as ever, but no longer do nationalists express it through the desire for aggressive expansion. They express it through fear and the wish of isolation. "We are a brotherless nation." "Greece belongs to the Greeks." Stuff like that.

But both kinds of nationalism have however the same twisted logic of seeing the nation, not the individual, as the entity that needs protection. Both are ideologies that lead to a twisted view of the world.

Anyway the difference between the leftist supposed "anti-imperialists" and the nationalist supposed "anti-imperialists" seems to be in their internal politics -- in international politics they seem to be identical. And if I can judge from certain Greek speciments of the above subspecies the reason they'd for example oppose any American violation of Iraqi national sovereignty would be their fear (real or feigned) that "they've attacked Serbia, they've attacked Iraq, they'll soon attack Greece/Turkey/Mozambique if we don't stop them now. Run! Run!"

It's really futile to try and convince them that America isn't in the habit of attacking peaceful democracies. They'll just call you misguided and naive. My own feeling is that often their personal sense of the division between democracy and dictatorship isn't as strong as should be -- and why would it be otherwise? When one sees the *Nation* as the unit to be protected, rather than the individual, then no longer does the nation's internal workings matter as much as the Nation itself as a satrosanct entity.

The same way that when I look at a human being I don't care about the individual blood cells inside the human, that's also why some nationalists don't care as much about the individual humans inside the nation.

Mind you, I don't know much about Murat, I haven't followed his posts very closely, so I couldn't tell for sure whether he falls to any of the above categories.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-05-17 5:43:05 PM||   2004-05-17 5:43:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 Got an update on those Olympic stadiums, dude?
Posted by Raj  2004-05-17 5:45:47 PM|| [http://angrycyclist.blogspot.com]  2004-05-17 5:45:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#62 . . . some nationalists don't care as much about the individual humans inside the nation. Mind you, I don't know much about Murat, I haven't followed his posts very closely, so I couldn't tell for sure whether he falls to any of the above categories.

Aris, you make some good points. I would add in a component of loyalty to “socio-political movements” in addition to strict nationalism. My take on Murat is that he is more anti- than pro-. That is to say, more than being a pro-Turk nationalist, or a pro-Iraq nationalist, he is first and foremost anti-American. Unless, he is pro-Communist, which I don’t know (because I haven’t seen him post enough on that topic. I would guess you are right that a lot of the Iraqis that are against us are pro-Iraq nationalists that see us as intruders (even some of our supporters there see us that way), but I think (more so) that the Iraqis against us are like Murat -- not so much nationalistic as movement oriented. In the case of Iraq, I think our opposition is from those who are pro-“the way of life Saddam gave them.” They don’t understand that kind of thuggery will never return, but (through fear and intimidation) they are trying to rebuild the tyranny from which they profited.
Posted by cingold 2004-05-17 6:11:06 PM||   2004-05-17 6:11:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#63 B, Aris is bringing some valid points to the table. I can honestly say I agree with him. He even sounds a little pro-american.

As for Murat - his post have gotten very nationalistic and somewhat of babble. He is not making a stong case as he did last year.

I personally believe he is seeing the remarkable progess the majority of iraq is experiencing(especially the proud nation of Kurdistan) and just cannot handle it. Turkey effectively vetoed any control of the situation and must sit on the sidelines while history passes them by (meaning the EU and a free iraq).
Posted by Dan 2004-05-17 6:23:28 PM||   2004-05-17 6:23:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#64 Thanks Aris. Very interesting and informative.

It would follow, then, that those who ally themselves with nationalism, as you describe it, soon find themselves backing nationalism at any cost--personal liberty being expendable. (Which, of course, can be a very bad thing, and one reason many have left their own countries to come to America.) I think the most dangerous "brand" of such nationalism here in the US, is the liberal left, which is anything but "liberal." More than any other group, they seek to stifle the individual in favor of a cultural/ideological conformity (i.e., a type of "transcendent" nationalism) that is amazingly fascist, and with it comes a sense of entitlement which allows them to believe they can do no wrong--that their oppression of those with differing views is completely justified. They very much believe that they are the (only) progressive, and enlightened members of society. But like cingold said (see below & #62), they end up being a lot more anti- (whatever) than pro- anything.

cingold: interesting point on certain nationalists being "more anti- than pro-" Those without a tried and true ideology seem to fall that way.
Posted by ex-lib 2004-05-17 7:28:01 PM||   2004-05-17 7:28:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#65 He even sounds a little pro-american
Damnit Dan, now you've done it.
;)
Posted by Shipman 2004-05-17 7:29:48 PM||   2004-05-17 7:29:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#66 I think the most dangerous "brand" of such nationalism here in the US, is the liberal left, which is anything but "liberal." More than any other group, they seek to stifle the individual in favor of a cultural/ideological conformity (i.e., a type of "transcendent" nationalism) that is amazingly fascist,

Even if what you say is correct, I very much doubt that you can label something "nationalism", if it doesn't have the idea of the nation at its core.

There exist non-nationalistic fascist ideologies also you know. Soviet communism was one, AFAIK. Islamofascism is another.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-05-17 8:44:55 PM||   2004-05-17 8:44:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#67 Even if what you say is correct, I very much doubt that you can label something "nationalism", if it doesn't have the idea of the nation at its core.

True, I think, in the strict sense. But, I think the nation they want and aspire to is ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. Which, IMO, is pretty scary . . .
Posted by cingold 2004-05-17 8:55:24 PM||   2004-05-17 8:55:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#68 But, I think the nation they want and aspire to is ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.

*sigh*. No offense, but you are stretching the meaning of words beyond their breaking point. That's a bit like calling "racist" a person who believes in a single human race.

The word is simply not used like that. If these people believe in the creation of a single human nation, then they are not nationalists. They may be adherents to other types of collectivism, but not nationalism.

"Which, IMO, is pretty scary..."

In time it'd be good if it would happen, if it was the voluntary union of democracies that supported human and political rights.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-05-17 9:11:10 PM||   2004-05-17 9:11:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#69 In time it'd be good if it would happen, if it was the voluntary union of democracies that supported human and political rights.

OK, it's a stretch to call globalists nationalists. What I mean to communicate is the fervor with which the globalists pursue their agenda. The one world government crowd has the same agenda as the communists and other fascist regimes. The one world government crowd seeks total domination and total control of the human race by the “enlightened few.” Kind of like Plato’s Republic on steroids? IMO, human nature will not permit that kind of political power to coexist with a “voluntary union of democracies [] support[ing] human and political rights.” What’s the saying? Power corrupts, and absolute power absolutely corrupts. The beauty of a world filled with separate nation states is the ability of that world to keep checks and balances on itself, which (in turn) promotes “voluntary union of democracies [] support[ing] human and political rights.”
Posted by cingold 2004-05-17 9:30:38 PM||   2004-05-17 9:30:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#70 The second enemy is the global left, brought to life by Soviet propoganda and somehow still kicking.

I don't think that's it. I believe at the core we have simple hatred of America borne out of jealousy. America is the epitome of success; the perception is that money grows on trees here and that people are always happy and drive big SUVs. Hence if you look around yourself and see nothing but misery (or your notion of it), the natural reaction is to defend your beliefs and the part of the world in which you live: everything American is shit, and everything of yours is superior. This extends to everything American, including a can of beans and Heinz ketchup, foreign policy. If it's American, it must be crap. It is a textbook inferiority complex.

Since communism was essentially the enemy of capitalism, much of this hatred of America takes on leftist attributes. They are natural allies.
Posted by Rafael 2004-05-17 9:48:21 PM||   2004-05-17 9:48:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#71 cingold> "The one world government crowd has the same agenda as the communists and other fascist regimes"

To tell the truth I have no idea what the "one world government" crowd is. I've known noone myself who currently advocates an actual single world government. Unless you mean things like "international consensus for military interventions" and stuff like that, which if anything has seemed to me an attempt to limit such interventions, not boost them.

When I myself discuss something like a single world government, I imagine it happening far far in the future, if dictatorships have first been effectively eliminated.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-05-17 10:10:18 PM||   2004-05-17 10:10:18 PM|| Front Page Top

10:29 Aussie Wife
03:37 Mark Espinola
07:53 Anonymous4937
07:06 Bravo Bravo
06:36 Brit: Tourist
06:33 ViroBono
06:11 Brit: Tourist
19:50 docob
19:35 Antiwar TROLL
08:06 B
01:46 Anonymous4617
01:26 Rafael
01:24 Mark Espinola
01:10 Super Hose
01:04 Anonymous4828
01:02 Super Hose
00:58 Super Hose
00:32 Mark Espinola
00:25 Mike Sylwester
00:15 Laurence of the Rats
00:09 Paul Moloney
00:01 Long Hair Republican
23:56 Atomic Conspiracy
23:54 ruprecht

Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
18.232.38.214

Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com