Most Arab media on Tuesday blamed the U.S. failure to provide security in Baghdad for the latest suicide bombings in the Iraqi capital. They agreed that Washington had only itself to blame for the chaos and said the United States had failed Iraqis by not providing enough security to prevent the devastating attacks that killed 35 people on Monday, the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.
I think my personal favourite is from the daily al-Khaleej, published in the United Arab Emirates:
Iraq, on the first day of Ramadan, was the scene of a bloodbath and occupation forces are directly responsible for this because of the instability they created in Iraq.
I suppose knowing where you stand with your torturers is stability of sorts but somehow I do not think that the victims of Saddam’s regime see it that way.
Saudi Arabia’s leading al-Riyadh newspaper opines:
The political bubble has burst in Baghdad. Will it be followed by other explosions or will the voice of reason prevail over the American dream of hegemony?
Disasters and conflicts notwithstanding there has never been a shortage of rhetorics in the Arabian Penninsula. There is only one voice that sounds half-reasonable although based on where it originated I would not want to look too close at the context of the quote. In non-Arab Iran, reformist parliamentarian Reza Yousefian said:
It is unjustifiable to kill ordinary people in the name of an anti-American campaign. On the contrary, the more insecurity prevails in Iraq, the longer Americans will stay.
Others, although outspoken against those who carried out the attacks, cannot help but add a sting in the tail. Lebanon’s as-Safir daily writes:
What happened yesterday in Baghdad is a crime by all measures, but it is more disgraceful than a crime: it is a deadly political mistake… Such political mistakes help the occupation to justify its horrible crimes.
Such outrage was lacking when it came to commenting on Saddam’s horrible crimes. I wish the Iraqis realised who their real enemies are.
Some do, via healing Iraq:
… Noori Al-Badran was screaming hysterically on tv blaming Saddam. Idiot. They still don’t know what they’re dealing with here. This Saddamophobia has to stop. Suicide attacks are carried out by you-know-who. This is Bin Ladens gift to his fellow Iraqi Muslims. Didn’t he say it himself a while ago? I demand that all Iraqi diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia and Syria cease immediately. I demand that we expel all foreign Arabs from Iraq until further notice. A little firmness is necessary. We can’t just sit and wait for the next attacks. Iraq should resign from the Arab League which is just a symposium for dictators. Who the hell needs it anymore? They didn’t even officially show sympathy for Iraqis after the attacks. They should be considered the enemy unless they act promptly to secure their borders and ensure that no Mujahedeen sneak through to Iraq daily. They are the ones to blame. We all know they have an interest in keeping up the attacks and the chaos. They are aware of the fact that they are next on the list after Saddam. They will pursue every possible effort to make the Iraqi example fail. When attacks are carried out in other Arab countries they consider it terrorism, but in Iraq it is resistance against the occupying Americans.
Such political mistakes help the occupation to justify its horrible crimes.
Maybe I missed it, but what “horrible crimes” is the occupation committing?
Especially by Middle Eastern standards.
Yes Gabriel, as the self-appointed supreme satrap of unilateralopathic self-righteousness, you are perfectly entitled to issue what Arab conscience ought to be.
A question: do you deem European medias to be Saddamite henchmen equally ?
“A question: do you deem European medias to be Saddamite henchmen equally ?”
Well … yes (some of them at least).
Intentionally or unintentionally they are on the side of tyrants and terror.
Indeed. One wishes Saddam’s institutionalized torture, rape and oppression had offended as many people as the alleged abused of the evil American occupier.
The funniest, and my favorite, I think, is the claim that America is creating terrorists by ‘humiliating’ people there. And making them angry. Of course, three decades of abuse by Saddam’s regime did not make them angry nor humiliate them. Not at all. Being dependent on a corrupt government and UN food rations for one’s survival is such an uplifting experience too.
It all started in March 2003. Saddam was a benevolent man, Iraq was peaceful and happy. Goes to show that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth for the simple-minded.
Funny, I don’t see any direct or indirect mention of “Saddam’s henchmen” in Grabriel’s post. Oh wait, it’s a Kodiak comment. Never mind.
Incidentally, you don’t have to go to Middle Eastern news outlets to witness this kind of stinking rhetorical landfill. Le Monde or The Guardian can prove surprisingl adept at accepting, ignoring or supporting pretty much anything, as long as it allows them to rant about American power and George W. Bush.
Case in point in the US, Paul Krugman in the New York Times excused Mahathir Mohamed’s recent remarks and blamed in on the White House and its foreign policy. His subtitle was : “Anti-semitism with a purpose”. Well, if it has a purpose, I guess that makes it OK then.
The vast majority of Iraqis know full well who their enemies are. The first opinion polls done in Baghdad were quite interesting in this respect.
It could be a lot worse, though. Imagine the disaster it could be with yet another impotent UN mission on the ground. No wonder Shia extremists and many local leader wannabes would love for the UN to take over with a multinational force. They’ve had years to see how ineffective and corrupt those missions are. They know they’d have a free rein if that happened.
Americans are another story entirely. They fight back. How offensive. How humiliating. The nerve on those people !!
I’m amazed that Israel wasn’t to blame. Most of the Arab papers manage to include a bit of anti-Israeli rhetoric in, erm, every story they print.
Tim, good point. After all, Prime Minister Mahathir pointed out the Jews were responsible for it all, to great applause at the Organization Of the Islamic Conference. And when you think about it, who else could it be ? After all, Islam is a religion of peace.
Jacob: and FoxNews is of course on the side of the friendly cow-boys…
******
Sylvain,
Saddam’s institutionalized torture, rape and oppression (…) >>> sponsored by the USA, don’t forget.
(…) three decades of abuse by Saddam’s regime (…) >>> see above + George The First’s decision to let Saddam massacre the Shiites in 1991 + continuous air strikes killing civilians since the end of the Gulf War.
Sure, Kodiak. He was under direct orders for every single one of his actions. From George W. Bush of course. Or since it’s Halloween season, was it all the fault of Prescott’s evil ghost ?
And by the way, just so you know, France and Russia gave a lot more help, financial, military or otherwise, to Saddam’s regime than the US ever did. By about an order of magnitude. The US doesn’t even figure out on the list of pending contracts before the war. For arms trade, volume data is available here, for instance : http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/atirq_data.html. It will show you the volume of arms sales by France was about 13 times that of the US. Do the math yourself.
But we can’t possibly let such simple, well-documented facts embarrass your blind, stupid little hatred. No lie or distortion is too big to feed it at this point. What would you do with yourself if it didn’t exist ? Have a life maybe ?
The Shiite massacre was quite a shameful episode, but you’re into hot water here. You’re saying America should have intervened and invaded Irak to avoid it ? Now that’s interesting. With what UN resolution ? Are you advocating illegal, unsanctioned war now ? You see, those first resolutions were about liberating Koweit…Interesting how what’s illegal today would have been legal then, retrospectively. How convenient.
You’re right, they should have intervened and the coalition should have finished its job. Better late than never. Taking his regime out was even more justified this year than it was 12 years ago.
Of course, when “death, poverty, shame, humiliation and fear” are inflicted by Saddam, you don’t give a rat’s ass. It’s only offensive to your sensibility if the White House or Israel are involved. No prejudice involed, of course. Your judgement is entirely fair and balanced, as usual.
Continuous air strikes killing civilians ? Continuous ? Really ? And killing civilians ? How many ? Says who ? Oh yeah. Our friend, the Grand Mufti of Truth, the Iraqi Minister Of Information. Now we know where you’ve been getting your news in the past couple of decades. I should have figured that one out a while ago…
Duh, even.
PS: and stop talking about Fox News like you ever watched it. I swear, nothing bad will happen to you if you quit repeating what you’re told.
PPS: funny how the same people will make fun of FoxNews and take al-Jazeera seriously as a source of information on the “plight of the Iraqi people” or Palestine. We can’t possibly trust Americans, specially if they’re not ashamed of themselves by mere virtue of being born there, but an Arab channel controlled and financed by an unelected prince ? Sure ! We’ll take that.
Sylvain,
I’m covering for George Peery with this comment. He usually does the anti-troll patrol, I believe. To wit: I agree with your comments but please don’t waste your time rebutting Kodiak. He’s nothing more than a troll trying to waste your (and everyone else’s) time. Whenever I start seeing what looks like a tinfoil-helmet response I immediately scroll to the poster. If it’s Kodiak, as it often is, I just continue on to the next post. Saves a great deal of time and umbrage.
Sylvain,
Why do you feel the need to caricature what you feel uneasy to cope with? Just try to be rational. Unless you aim at something different of course…
Thanx for your link but it doesn’t work! Funny… Anyway we can claim, as an introduction, that the US weapon trade industry accounts for 50 % of the World market (including the $ bn 7,2 invoiced to the peaceful, WMD-less Israel for the last decade). Not too bad. The situation at home too is advantageous, for the militaro-industrial complex is pumping up the second-biggest federal -so unsocialist!- subsidies (second only to the free-market-like agriculture industry which devours the biggest federal subvention >>> so Anglospheric in terms of economical freedom).
More from Sylvain: The Shiite massacre was quite a shameful episode, but you’re into hot water here. You’re saying America should have intervened and invaded Irak to avoid it ? Now that’s interesting. With what UN resolution ? Are you advocating illegal, unsanctioned war now (…).
You will notice the remarkable change in tone in those words by our official Napolitan or Cretan pleureuse (ie: weeping woman hired for special occasions like funerals in some regions of the Mediterranean): he’s no longer raging against the Shiites’ mass graves caused by Saddam. No, no, no! Professor Sylvain is now declaimaing about a “hot-water resolution”. He quit being shocked by Saddam’s atrocities: he’s just wondering why this vilainous UN refused a good resolution to the heroic George The First.
Yes Sylvain, your indignation is selective & feigned. It is loathsome.
Apparently insulting France is your favourite sport. Fair enough. But why do feel compelled to vomit your hypocrisy on a martyr country? Do you think you’re helping the US army? Just join the marines if you wanna prove useful once in your life: I’m sure the Iraqis are going to be fascinated by your splendid arrival at Bagdad airport.
Dan, I know. It’s just fun to make the troll take himself seriously and dance his little jigg once in a while. You just never know how large a hole he’s going to dig himself into. This being said, I don’t want to waste too much space on your fine blog. If you prefer the looney toon to be left soiling himself in a corner, I’ll be happy to oblige, if the other patrons like it quiet. Let me know. What can I say, the guy likes to be smacked on the top of the head and once in a blue moon, I’m happy to oblige. Sorry for the noise. Rest assured there won’t be any brain splatter. I mean, it can’t really happen, can it ?
Kodiak, the link works fine. Guess even your browser can’t handle facts. LOL.
And oh yeah, *you* are going to teach me about being rational ? What next, Clinton is going to give us a seminar on fidelity ? Give me a break.
First, learn reading. I never wrote anything about a “hot water resolution”. I said *you* were in hot water. Can you even tell the difference ? Let’s try :
“You are in hot water”
“A hot water resolution”
Now, I said the former, you see the latter. I suggest you get off the weed, man. Or stop whatever activity is making you blind and get glasses. No wonder you can’t even follow a link. You sure it’s a computer mouse you’re rubbing and clicking there ?…(I don’t want to know the answer to this particular question, thank you).
Then, based on this rather random reading of yours, you run around the issue in a weak attempt to cover your own arse, as usual. Where did I say the UN refused a resolution to George Bush Sr. ? Where ? Show me. Stop inventing things and attributing them to people as you go along. Grow up, little man. Put up or shut up instead of making up fairy tales.
I am talking about *you* and your twisted logic, pal. Stop running away. It’s you we’re talking about here.
1) You pointed out the Americans didn’t do anything about the Shiite slaughter of 1991. Which I agreed was a shameful episode. Infuriating, even. I’ve been pissed off about this one for, oh, about 12 years.
2) Except the U.N. resolution for this particular war didn’t allow them to intervene in this “internal Iraqi matter”. At least, that was one of the official American reasons for standing by. A lame, stupid, spineless excuse, as far as I’m concerned. But according to your just, grandstanding “morality” and fuzzy understanding of international law, this lack of a resolution did actually forbid them to do anything about the ongoing slaughter within Iraq’s border.
And by the time the resolution was secured, it would all have been all over anyway. Brilliant. That’s the UN for you. As any other useless bureaucracy, following the process is more important than doing the right thing when it must be done.
3) Unless, of course, you are suddenly OK with invading and bombing foreign countries without any appropriate UN resolution ? Well, are you in this case ? And if not, why the criticism about American inaction when your own rules prevented them from doing anything, both “morally” and “legally” ?
You can’t have it both ways, Kodiak.
So it’s not my indignation that’s selective, it’s your so-called “principles”, which apply or not, depending on what cheap imaginary point you want to score. If people don’t follow U.N. rules as you see them, you scream bloody murder. If they follow U.N. rules as you see them, you scream bloody murder. You have one interesting definition of rationality.
Incidentally, I had no problems with them invading Iraq and going all the way to Baghdad. They could have. And they should have. It would have saved countless human lives, billions of dollars and prevented the U.N. from wasting 12 years of everybody’s time in pointless, ineffective, if not counterproductive paperwork. Funnily enough, many in France agreed at the time – meaning, the coalition should have “finished the job” – including…you guessed it, our national Jacques Chirac. Who, as we know, is a man of impeccable integrity and solid principles. (And Islam is a religion of peace. Amen.)
And where did I insult France in this thread ? Where ? Again, show me. Where ? Will you stop making up allegations just for the sake of making another of your trademark pedantic little snide comments ? Because I link to data that shows how many weapons it sold Iraq ? That’s insulting France ? Uh ? Hello ? McFly ? Anybody home ?
Let me get something straight. The constant, rabid, xenophobic hatred of America and the UK you continually display around here is fair and balanced criticism, no doubt. Nothing insulting there. But any criticism of France is automatically unfair and insulting.
Get over yourself.
Martyr country ? What “martyr” country ? You talk “martyrs” now ? I see. Where did I hear this word before….it’s a group of people somewhere, they always use this word to justify violence and murder. Oh yes. Never mind. You and them should get along real well. You’ve obviously read the same books so you should be able to get to work without going through all that boring theoretical stuff. Cool beans. Get to it.
Just join the marines if you wanna prove useful hmmmm….Sooooo….the Marines are useful now ? Wow, Kodiak implicitly admitted armed forces are useful. That’s a first. Good job, buddy. See ? That wasn’t so hard.
And how useful are *you* to the Iraqi people, by the way ? What have *you* done for them lately ? Aside from buying the gas for your car from Total ?
Quit giving people fanciful, caricatural motives pulled out of boring old stereotypes. Like anyone needs some kind of higher military purpose to show you for the jackass with a tinfoil hat that you are…
One last bit before I’m off the Kodiak Cartoon Network.
Check out this one : http://www.csis.org/features/wiserpeace_II.pdf. Guess who was the first supplier in the OFP program from 97 to 2001 with $2.2bn ?
That can’t possibly have anything to do with their position at the U.N., can it ? Nah, they’re an entirely disinterested government. Only the evil Americans are selfish enough to look after their own interests.
The French government, on the other hand, consistently chooses to go against its own interests….
(Well, come to think of it, it kinda does…)
OK, enough time wasted playing with the village monkey. Later all.
Sylvain: We have no problem with you taking Kodiak to task. We have long ago tired of it but admit that we find the guy perplexing. So wrong and gullible on so many issues, yet he coming back to read us, as if the existence of Samizdata.net was a thorn in his…well, the part of his body that spew much of the nonsense in our comments sections.
I suppose he does provide a valuable entertainment time. That said I do not doubt his earnestness just his intellect and his ability to face the facts.
Finally, we think your blog rocks and are happy to see you here.
Sylvain,
What next, Clinton is going to give us a seminar on fidelity ? >>> well, to me, being infidel is a lesser misdemeanour than sending young people risk their lives for some oil barrels.
You pointed out the Americans didn’t do anything about the Shiite slaughter of 1991. Which I agreed was a shameful episode. Infuriating, even. I’ve been pissed off about this one for, oh, about 12 years. >>> dont acte.
Except the U.N. resolution for this particular war didn’t allow them to intervene in this “internal Iraqi matter”.
Eh bien Sylvain, quelle mémoire! More bombs were dropped in 1991 by the coalition (including the French) on the Iraqi territory than what Germany received during the entire WW2 (including Dresden & Hamburg). That’s almost 90.000 tonnes of explosives dispatched during more than 100.000 air sorties. Iraq (not the Iraqi troops in Koweit) was inflicted 200-billion-dollar worth damage. In spite of all of that, the US army refused to intermingle in this “internal Iraqi matters” (read: save the oil-deprived marshland Shiites from certain slaughter) although the UN did help the Shiite refugees in compliance with resolution n° 688 issued on 5 April 1991. On a French initiative, the Allied (including the US, this time only) agreed to help the Kurds >>> Provide Comfort operation. So in this case the US army agreed to interfere with “internal Iraqi matters”; perhaps because of oil propinquity?
The US Middle East policy is bright like crystal: avoid the rise of any regional power. When Iran’s power is mounting, the US finance the not-yet-atrocious Saddam (1984-1989). When Saddam is planning an independent all-Arab security force, then Saddam suddenly becomes the new Hitler.
It’s also funny how the invasion of Koweit started: on 25 July 1991, Ms Glaspie, US ambassador to Iraq, tells Saddam that the US has no opinion about the Iraq-Koweit border dispute. A superb green light for Saddam to proceed further. Ms Galspie later said that the US would have tolerated an invasion limited to northern Koweit.
Yep, US aversion for Saddamite mass-graves is deep-rooted, long-lasting & full-hearted.
Adriana, thank you kindly.
Perplexing. Yes, that is the word I was looking for. (wink).
Kodiak, can you read English ? Or are you genetically unable to answer a straight question without going into an unrelated rant ? What does the amount of bombs dropped have anything to do with it ? How does that answer the question, which was : do you favor intervention in foreign countries without explicit UN resolutions authorizing them, Yes, or No ? The Koweit U.N. resolution authorized the use of force against Iraq. No problem there. But once Koweit is free of Iraqi soldier, that’s it. You can’t go back in and invade them for something else, can you ?
There was a resolution to help the Kurds and the northern no-fly zone that came with it. On French initiative…LOL…yeah, right…funny how we credit ourselves with the initiative for everything and everybody else does the dirty work…
Sort of reminds me Matignon saying we couldn’t “on principle” participate any further in U.N. sanctions against Iraq on “humanitarian” grounds. Next thing you know, Tareq Azis pays a visit to confirm a future contract for Total, pending the lifting of sanctions. Totally unrelated, of course. And that had nothing to do with our subsequent demands to lift sanctions together with Russia, the other country with huge oil interests in Iraq. All coincidental circumstances imagined by the vast right-wing conspiracy headquartered in that undisclosed location where Dick Cheney plots his next move…No doubt.
Anyway. There never was a resolution for the Shiites though. Which begs the question : where was the selfless “French initiative” then ? Looks to me like we didn’t care about them much either. But when it’s us, it’s OK.
So given the lack of resolution to defend the shiite, and the speed of events – the repression was extremely brutal and the main thrust of it lasted a very few weeks at most – the only way to deal with it was to invade without a UN resolution. And I certainly agree it should have been done. But if you do also, you are contradicting yourself and your own rules. Hence my question, which you studiously avoid to repeat your boring, predictable anglo-bashing blah-blah.
The US Middle East policy is bright like crystal: avoid the rise of any regional power
And given the kind of powers in the region, it’s a very wise policy. I guess our only complaint here is that they prevented our favorite client from becoming that regional power. Rats. How unfair. Why is it always their dictators who win ? Boooo.
When Iran’s power is mounting, the US finance the not-yet-atrocious Saddam (1984-1989).
Actually, we financed Saddam a lot more than America ever did, and started a lot earlier – remember Osirak ? – but you wouldn’t know that. Which, incidentally, made it a lot easier for the US to forgive outstanding Iraqi debts since they had hundreds of millions to wipe off, while we still have unpaid billions left on our tab (the Russians are even deeper in the hole). And we sold the most weapons to Iraq, after the Russians. That’s well documented on that link you are not too willing to follow. I understand…
We’re in no position to lecture anyone on this, Kodiak. I’m sorry, man, we’re in it up to our neck. And Chirac has been in it for thirty years and counting. Hence his need to constantly claim to the gullible audience at home about his ‘principled’ position, to deflect the attention both from our past involvements, and to push his corruption scandals in the background by looking presidential. You’re free to fall for it, if you wish. The fact that the local press was talking about his immunity from prosecution the whole summer before Bush got the U.N. in motion had nothing to do with his move, of course. He’s such a great man, so far above the fray. How lucky we are to have a such a selfless, fearless leader. How can one possibly doubt the good intentions of a President who receives suitcases of cash in his office to pay for family “trips” ?
Saddam suddenly becomes the new Hitler.
Just like Bush is the new Hitler as soon as he goes after our favorite Arab customer. You’re right. We are so much more subtle.
And yes, the Americans gave Saddam the green light. They bombed the crap out of him, destroyed half his army and kicked him out of Koweit.
Some green light.
But of course, we can’t judge them by their collective actions. The words of one single ambassador are what matter. No convenient shortcut will be left unexplored to support your blind hostility.
Yep, US aversion for Saddamite mass-graves is deep-rooted, long-lasting & full-hearted.
Well, er, yes. You’re right. I can’t agree more. The US hate mass graves. That’s….the point. LOL. I mean, having an aversion for mass graves is evil now ?
Kodiak, on the frontline to fight the right of mass graves to exist !!! LOLOLOLOL
And yeah, Americans’ hatred for persecutors is as deep-rooted, long-lasting and full hearted as your blind, ridiculously prejudiced animosity against them.
So all is well with the world.
So long.
(OK guys, I’m really done now. Now that Kodiak said he’s for mass graves, I can’t really ask for more, can I ?)
Sylvain,
I can read English (a bit). What I can’t read are Chariahgoboyz’s fatwas & onsesidedness.
What does the amount of bombs dropped have anything to do with it ?
Well it means that coalition forces needed no resolution to slaughter Iraqi civilians in no way related to Koweit’s invasion.
Provide Comfort
Seems really hard for you to admit the French aren’t just a bunch of detestable creatures. After all, they’re just a bunch of antisemitic Nazis too, right?
There never was a resolution for the Shiites though. Which begs the question : where was the selfless “French initiative” then ?
Resolution n° 688 issued on 5 April 1991.
The US Middle East policy is bright like crystal: avoid the rise of any regional power.
And given the kind of powers in the region, it’s a very wise policy.
You’re inferring that the US is anyhow “better” than the kind of powers in the region. No less than 150 countries disagree. Excuse du peu.
When Iran’s power is mounting, the US finance the not-yet-atrocious Saddam (1984-1989).
Funny you never addess questions asked but run like a mad to seize & brandish your French scarecrow…
We’re in no position to lecture anyone on this, Kodiak.
What you feign not to understand is that I am not the French government spokeman. I could be from the US & raise the same questions. What would you answer then? That I am a Democratic redneck or a Saddamite Clintonista?
Everybody sensible here DOES know the US foreign policy -in the Middle East in particular- has nothing to do neither with Human rights nor with heartbroken feelings. Why don’t you too?
And your humour about the Saddamite mass graves is a rather conclusive summary of your cynical concerns about Iraqi suffering under Saddam & Rumsfeld.