Voice of Iraqis: Why don’t antiwar types want to hear them?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Drizzt

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,647
Location
Moscow on the Colorado, TX
February 26, 2003, 10:00 a.m.

Voice of Iraqis
Why don’t antiwar types want to hear them?

By Amir Taheri



Could I have the microphone for one minute to tell the people about my life?" asked the Iraqi grandmother.

I spent part of a recent Saturday with the so-called "antiwar" marchers in London in the company of some Iraqi friends. Our aim had been to persuade the organizers to let at least one Iraqi voice to be heard. Soon, however, it became clear that the organizers were as anxious to stifle the voice of the Iraqis in exile as was Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

The Iraqis had come with placards reading "Freedom for Iraq" and "American rule, a hundred thousand times better than Takriti tyranny!"

But the tough guys who supervised the march would have none of that. Only official placards, manufactured in thousands and distributed among the "spontaneous" marchers, were allowed. These read "Bush and Blair, baby-killers," " Not in my name," "Freedom for Palestine," and "Indict Bush and Sharon."

Not one placard demanded that Saddam should disarm to avoid war.

The goons also confiscated photographs showing the tragedy of Halabja, the Kurdish town where Saddam's forces gassed 5,000 people to death in 1988.

We managed to reach some of the stars of the show, including Reverend Jesse Jackson, the self-styled champion of American civil rights. One of our group, Salima Kazim, an Iraqi grandmother, managed to attract the reverend's attention and told him how Saddam Hussein had murdered her three sons because they had been dissidents in the Baath Party; and how one of her grandsons had died in the war Saddam had launched against Kuwait in 1990.

"Could I have the microphone for one minute to tell the people about my life?" 78-year-old Salima demanded.

The reverend was not pleased.

"Today is not about Saddam Hussein," he snapped. "Today is about Bush and Blair and the massacre they plan in Iraq." Salima had to beat a retreat, with all of us following, as the reverend's gorillas closed in to protect his holiness.

We next spotted former film star Glenda Jackson, apparently manning a stand where "antiwar" characters could sign up to become "human shields" to protect Saddam's military installations against American air attacks.

"These people are mad," said Awad Nasser, one of Iraq's most famous modernist poets. "They are actually signing up to sacrifice their lives to protect a tyrant's death machine."

The former film star, now a Labor party member of parliament, had no time for "side issues" such as the 1.2 million Iraqis, Iranians, and Kuwaitis who have died as a result of Saddam's various wars.

We thought we might have a better chance with Charles Kennedy, a boyish-looking, red-headed Scot who leads the misnamed Liberal Democrat party. But he, too, had no time for "complex issues" that could not be raised at a mass rally.

"The point of what we are doing here is to tell the American and British governments that we are against war," he pontificated. "There will be ample time for other issues."

But was it not amazing that there could be a rally about Iraq without any mention of what Saddam and his regime have done over almost three decades? Just a little hint, perhaps, that Saddam was still murdering people in his Qasr al-Nayhayah (Palace of the End) prison, and that as the Westerners marched, Iraqis continued to die?

Not a chance.

We then ran into Tony Benn, a leftist septuagenarian who has recycled himself as a television reporter to interview Saddam in Baghdad.

But we knew there was no point in talking to him. The previous night he had appeared on TV to tell the Brits that his friend Saddam was standing for "the little people" against "hegemonistic America."

"Are these people ignorant, or are they blinded by hatred of the United States?" Nasser the poet demanded.

The Iraqis would had much to tell the "antiwar" marchers, had they had a chance to speak. Fadel Sultani, president of the National Association of Iraqi authors, would have told the marchers that their action would encourage Saddam to intensify his repression.

"I had a few questions for the marchers," Sultani said. "Did they not realize that oppression, torture and massacre of innocent civilians are also forms of war? Are the antiwar marchers only against a war that would liberate Iraq, or do they also oppose the war Saddam has been waging against our people for a generation?"

Sultani could have told the peaceniks how Saddam's henchmen killed dissident poets and writers by pushing page after page of forbidden books down their throats until they choked.

Hashem al-Iqabi, one of Iraq's leading writers and intellectuals, had hoped the marchers would mention the fact that Saddam had driven almost four million Iraqis out of their homes and razed more than 6,000 villages to the ground.

"The death and destruction caused by Saddam in our land is the worst since Nebuchadnezzar," he said. "These prosperous, peaceful, and fat Europeans are marching in support of evil incarnate." He said that, watching the march, he felt Nazism was "alive and well and flexing its muscles in Hyde Park."

Abdel-Majid Khoi, son of the late Grand Ayatollah Khoi, Iraq's foremost religious leader for almost 40 years, spoke of the "deep moral pain" he feels when hearing the so-called " antiwar" discourse.

"The Iraqi nation is like a man who is kept captive and tortured by a gang of thugs," Khoi said. "The proper moral position is to fly to help that man liberate himself and bring the torturers to book. But what we witness in the West is the opposite: support for the torturers and total contempt for the victim."

Khoi said he would say ahlan wasahlan (welcome) to anyone who would liberate Iraq.

"When you are being tortured to death you are not fussy about who will save you," he said.

Ismail Qaderi, a former Baathist official but now a dissident, wanted to tell the marchers how Saddam systematically destroyed even his own party, starting by murdering all but one of its 16 original leaders.

"Those who see Saddam as a symbol of socialism, progress, and secularism in the Arab world must be mad," he said.

Khalid Kishtaini, Iraq's most famous satirical writer, added his complaint.

"Don't these marchers know that the only march possible in Iraq under Saddam Hussein is from the prison to the firing-squad?" he asked. "The Western marchers behave as if the US wanted to invade Switzerland, not Iraq under Saddam Hussein."

With all doors shutting in our faces we decided to drop out of the show and watch the political zoology of the march from the sidelines.

Who were these people who felt such hatred of their democratic governments and such intense self-loathing?

There were the usual suspects: the remnants of the Left, from Stalinists and Trotskyites to caviar socialists. There were the pro-abortionists, the anti-GM food crowd, the anti-capital-punishment militants, the black-rights gurus, the anti-Semites, the "burn Israel" lobby, the "Bush-didn't-win-Florida" zealots, the unilateral disarmers, the anti-Hollywood "cultural exception" merchants, and the guilt-ridden postmodernist "everything is equal to everything else" philosophers.

But the bulk of the crowd consisted of fellow travelers, those innocent citizens who, prompted by idealism or boredom, are always prepared to play the role of "useful idiots," as Lenin used to call them.

They ignored the fact that the peoples of Iraq are unanimous in their prayers for the war of liberation to come as quickly as possible.

The number of marchers did not impress Salima, the grandmother.

"What is wrong does not become right because many people say it," she asserted, bidding us farewell while the marchers shouted "Not in my name!"

Let us hope that when Iraq is liberated, as it soon will be, the world will remember that it was not done in the name of Rev. Jackson, Charles Kennedy, Glenda Jackson, Tony Benn, and their companions in a march of shame.

— Amir Taheri is author of The Cauldron: The Middle East behind the headlines. Taheri is reachable through www.benadorassociates.com.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-taheri022603.asp
 
The anti-war types don't care about Iraq. They care about Bush pooping their party. To them he is the Stern Dad who will send them to their rooms or, worse, the Reformed Addict who ain't buying the "anything goes" agenda. I've talked to a lot of people on the Left and I hear the same mantras again and again and again. When it's not fear of Bush it's about fear of the world and their responsibilities in it.
 
"Heh. If a bunch of Iraqi expats want to overthrow Saddam, why aren't they footing the bill for it?"

For the same reason Einstein didn't attempt to overthrow Hitler. I guess he should have financed his own nuclear research as well. Idealism vs. realism - I'm glad some know the difference.
 
Voice of Iraqis: Why don’t antiwar types want to hear them?

The anti war protesters are liberals- liberals never want to hear the truth because if they did they would be unable to go on being liberals.

Cognitive dissonance.

"Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which has two major effects on learning:

*if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget's terms.

*if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are not likely to admit that the content of what has been learned is not valuable. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned". "


Liberals KNOW the "truth"- they don't want to hear it.
:banghead:
 
It's simply proof that they hate Dubya more than anything else.

Where was Carter, Sheen and the rest when Clinton was acting unilaterally against Milosevich?
 
For the same reason Einstein didn't attempt to overthrow Hitler.
Translation - they don't have the money, and/or they would rather spend mine. Sorry, that don't cut it.

I guess he should have financed his own nuclear research as well.
Yup. He should have.

Idealism vs. realism - I'm glad some know the difference.
I'm an idealistic realist - does that count?

- Chris
 
I would rather have my tax money spent on this war than most of the programs in the Fed and any of the programs in CA.

At least you are realistic. You are not arguing that Saddam is not a problem and that the Iraqi people have not been brutalized and murdered.

Nice to know that its just bottom line thing for you.

There are many atrocities occuring the in the world at any given time and it is a given that we cannot intervene everywhere.

However, as a free person, I think we owe it to ourselves to intervene when there is another manifestation of Hitler or Stalin in the world.

But then, perhaps you would have said - to hell with the Jews and the slavs and the gypsies and everyone else - if they don't want to bake, they should raise an army.

O beautiful for heroes proved In liberating strife.
Who more than self the country loved
And mercy more than life!
America! America!
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness
And every gain divine!
 
Chis: I don't usually agree with you (and I don't on this one either) but I do respect your opinion. Idealistic realist? I like that. It's never any fun if we all agree!:D
 
I would rather have my tax money spent on this war than most of the programs in the Fed and any of the programs in CA.
I would rather have my tax money back. :D

Nice to know that its just bottom line thing for you.
I think that greed is a virtue, so I don't bother to conceal mine.

However, as a free person, I think we owe it to ourselves to intervene when there is another manifestation of Hitler or Stalin in the world.
Couple of logical problems in this statement. First, comparing Saddam Hussein to Hitler or Stalin is faulty reasoning at best. Compared to the #1 and #3 (I think) mass murderers of the last century, Saddam rates nothing more than a flyspeck. Second, why do 'we' owe it to ourselves to go kick the snot out of Iraq? For the money? For our own safety? Just because we are nice people and we want the rest of the world to like us? None of it washes.

But then, perhaps you would have said - to hell with the Jews and the slavs and the gypsies and everyone else - if they don't want to bake, they should raise an army.
Funny you bring this up, considering that it was the policy of the US government up to 1940. The Weremacht would have been a tough fight if the USG had gotten into the war in the late '30s; I'd lay fair odds that the US Army would have lost a European ground war at that time. It's a bit different when there's a real fight in the offing...

Anyhow, speaking only for myself, I have a lot more respect for the Jews, the Poles, the Slavs, the Free French (even though they were mostly commies), the Norwegians, etc, who fought rather than accepting their fate.

- Chris
 
They are NOT anti-war

If they were anti-war they would have been out in droves each time Clinton did something. Not a peep though.

They are anti-Bush!! Nothing more, nothing less, unless of course they are just anti-American.
 
If they were anti-war they would have been out in droves each time Clinton did something. Not a peep though.

They are anti-Bush!! Nothing more, nothing less, unless of course they are just anti-American.

Bingo.
 
Chris, old boy....

you've just made their point for them:D

****************************************************
"Funny you bring this up, considering that it was the policy of the US government up to 1940."
****************************************************

Isolationist, 'anti-war' American public declines to help Europe resist Hitler.


****************************************************
"The Weremacht would have been a tough fight if the USG had gotten into the war in the late '30s; I'd lay fair odds that the US Army would have lost a European ground war at that time."
****************************************************


Hitler had little but determination until the end of the '30's. The success of his forces had far more to do with lack of will among the allies. The French actually outgunned the Germans by a considerable margin, and the U.S. could have out-produced Nazi Germany at any time. And Hitler would have lost sooner.



****************************************************
"It's a bit different when there's a real fight in the offing..."
****************************************************


Does the 'reality' of a fight depend on the scale, or the results?


****************************************************
"Anyhow, speaking only for myself, I have a lot more respect for the Jews, the Poles, the Slavs, the Free French (even though they were mostly commies), the Norwegians, etc, who fought rather than accepting their fate."
****************************************************

Wouldn't these groups have been honored to have had help earlier in the fight??

And would anyone with 'respect' for their brave but futile stand been truly 'respectable' for having declined to help them?
 
The anti war protesters are liberals- liberals never want to hear the truth because if they did they would be unable to go on being liberals.
Truth is a subjective thing my friend. Based upon point-of-view.

What you would do well to argue is fact. I have some liberal attitudes, but I am always willing to listen to the facts. Sometimes they change my mind, and sometimes I feel they are not pertinent to my current thought; therefore not changing my mind.

Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget's terms.
2dogs, why must you make me relive my Educational Psychology classes?!? :)

I would rather have my tax money spent on this war than most of the programs in the Fed and any of the programs in CA.
I disagree. I feel that if we withdraw ALL AID from ALL COUNTRIES for a period of 5 years, we'd be a lot better off (admitedly at the expense of the rest of the world) [see posts by me elsewhere in THR]:)
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O beautiful for heroes proved In liberating strife.
Who more than self the country loved
And mercy more than life!
America! America!
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness
And every gain divine!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well said Pendragon. Unfortunately, verse three is lost on the resident liberal. :rolleyes:
 
truth

Sorry, while it is a cornerstone of liberal idiology that "truth" is a relative subjective term, the reality is that very few real "truths" are relative to a particular viewpoint. Those that are usually are called opinions. Truth to Saddam is whatever he says at any given moment (as it was and is to clinton and most of his followers). There is nothing wrong with wanting to call one's own opinions, "truths" as long as one accepts that they may be true only relative to how you "feel"; oops, there's that other touchstone of liberal idiology - how I(they) feel about something.
 
Chris, Beorn et. al.

I think you miss the point of the article. That is that the Iraquis weren't allowed to speak. They weren't allowed not by some ill-informed teenage follower; they were shut up by the leaders and representatives of the antiwar movement.

Now I have no doubt that had they aproached you fellas, you would have let them speak, and then debated them. But that's not the way of the antiwar movement, and that makes it a lie even if their point is correct.
 
Truth or consequences.

In the '30's we did not accept the truth about Hitler therefore we paid the consequences. Hitler could have been stopped with the loss of little Eurpean blood and no American blood.

There is evidence that the US gov't knew about the Japanese task force sitting off Pearl Harbor. We did get our carriers out of Pearl. We parked the battleships there. There was argument in the Navy at the time that the battleship was obsolete. [Hmmm...] There is one report floating around that the "Day of Infamy" speech was written on the second of December.

If we had smashed Hitler "way back when" we'd have never known for sure what he was. If we'd have smashed that Japanese fleet, we'd have never known what they would do.

Odd isn't it? You can't know what somebody would have done if you prevent him from doing it. So we are into that PC bugaboo, PROFILING. "H" could have been prevented from doing "A" if he had been stopped while doing "X". "S" is doing "X". Stop him so he can't do "A".

Now the liberals hate Bush since he is trying to stop Saddam. If Bush says, "OK, Liberals. You win. Let's go home," and he pulls back the troops and then IF Saddam does what the profile suggests he may well do, the same Liberals will blast Bush for "failing" to stop him.

Bush the first followed the UN idea that we leave Saddam intact in 1991 and he's being blamed for not getting him then. The same "blasters" would have blasted Bush #1 if he had taken Saddam out then. "He violated UN policy!" they would have screamed.

So why do we have these seeming illogical Liberals appearing to thwart every move that is made toward the furtherance of Liberty and Individual Rights both here and abroad? Simple. Liberalism is the kid brother of tyranny. They thrive in these area of uncertainty. That uncertainty involves the thought: "We know what WILL happen but we can't PROVE it in a court of law."

Hitler was a Liberal. NAZI is an acroynm incorporating the German word for Socialism. Socialism is a failed Liberal idea. Socialism and its big brother, Communism, cannot survive in an atmosphere featuring liberty and individual rights.

The question remains: "Why did American Liberals love Stalin, who murdered far more people than Hitler, but hated Hitler?" before he declared war on the USSR. Probably because Hitler was the new kid on the butcher block when he emerged. Stalin already was in business.

Remember. Liberals in this country are promoting and drooling for the installation of totalitarian government here in America. Why else do they work so dilligently against the Bill of Rights? They only promote freedom of speech when a porn geek is trying to entice your child. They only promote the fifth amendment noisily when that fifth amendment is protecting a known terrorist. And it goes on. Liberals support the so-called Multiculturalism programs on college campusses. Multiculturalism is the code word for Anti-Americanism. The first amendment is dead on copllege campuses both in its freedom-of-speech area and in its government-establishment-of-religion area. Multiculturalism is a religion complete with chants, rallies and the smashing of rival religion's ceremonies, symbols and holidays.

Make no mistake about it. American Liberalism is the enemy of Liberty everywhere. That's why they protest the present war of liberation. So they are being logical. Any piece of information that does not promote their Anti-Liberty, therefore Anti-American agenda is to them "a lie."

Accept and act on this truth or pay the consequences.

Action?? Vote carefully. That's the best way as long as the American system is not corrupted beyond an ability to correct itself. But what happens if the system can't correct itself?
 
fallingblock -

Does the 'reality' of a fight depend on the scale, or the results?
Not sure what you mean. My point was that it's easy for the government to start banging the drums and sending the boys off to war when there's little risk of a major fight. Things are different when the body bags start to pile up.

Wouldn't these groups have been honored to have had help earlier in the fight??
I would hope so.

And would anyone with 'respect' for their brave but futile stand been truly 'respectable' for having declined to help them?
Um, respectfully, fallingblock, you missed the point by a country mile.

Look, if you want to grab a rifle and a plane ticket and go out and fight tyrrany and injustice, you won't hear a peep out of me. Go to it. Depending on the cause, I may join you.

What chaps my butt is when people start hitting me up for the plane fare and ammo costs.

What REALLY chaps my butt is when the government says, "Here's your rifle and plane ticket, there's the enemy, go get em!" Thanks, guys, but I decide who I fight. My concience is not subordinate to that of the state.

Khornet -

You are indeed right, and this illustrates the reason why I have little respect for the leftist arm of the anti-war movement. They have no internal consistency. They're against war, but they're plenty happy to pick my pocket to pay for nation building, UN civics projects, and other social.eng causes. And I have a feeling that many of them (I can think of a few notable left-wing exceptions) would heartly cheer on a war against a libertarian-capitalist nation-state with no public works or social benefits.

- Chris
 
Thank you,

Mr. Rines.

And you in turn are right about our pockets being picked. Mr. Durante was right, as somebody's sig line here says.

BTW, there's a Rines Road near me in NH, where I take my boys squirrel hunting. You should see it. Lovely place.
 
Oops, sorry Chris...

I do seem to have been a bit confused about your point there.:)

****************************************************
"What REALLY chaps my butt is when the government says, "Here's your rifle and plane ticket, there's the enemy, go get em!" Thanks, guys, but I decide who I fight. My concience is not subordinate to that of the state."
****************************************************

Been there, done that. We are in total agreement !:D

I suppose that sometimes it is neccessary to apply force, or the convincing threat of force, to protect the nation from attack.
We seem to be in a new kind of geopolitical game after 9/11, where the goal of the enemy is not to conquer us in the military sense, but rather to obliterate us in the cultural sense. If Saddam has WMD, I'm quite happy for G.W. to whack Iraq before he can deploy them. I will add that I'm considered too old to bring the rifle to the party anymore ;)
 
I'm an idealistic realist - does that count? -- CR
Well, no...because that's a practical oxymoron.

Realism seems to be far from your strong suit.

To wit, this gem:

What REALLY chaps my butt is when the government says, "Here's your rifle and plane ticket, there's the enemy, go get em! [sic]" Thanks, guys, but I decide who [sic] I fight. My concience is not subordinate to that of the state.

I am happy that my primary language isn't Hochdeutsch...and that our country didn't have to depend on your sort of mindset in our fight against Nazism and communism.

Fortunately, for those of your "idealism", there are good men and women who fought and died for your right to express your opinion.

And equally fortunate, there are those who willingly volunteer, train and deploy to keep us free from those who would destroy us and our way of life.
 
Chris,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess he should have financed his own nuclear research as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yup. He should have.

Come on now. Defense research is one of the only things the government SHOULD be spending OUR money on.
 
Zander -

How exactly is the current invasion of Afghanistan protecting my freedom? How would an invasion of Iraq, for that matter? "Soldiers on the front lines, fighting for our freedom" is a wonderful patriotic meme, but it doesn't stand up to the bost elementary test of causation. Sorry.

QKRTHNU (how do you pronounce that?) -

Sorry, but government making unilateral decisions to spend my money on anything is nothing more than theft. Regardless of how noble the goal.

- Chris
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top