Skip

Antiwar protests in Iraq
December 11, 2003 7:03 AM   Subscribe

Antiwar protests have broken out in Iraq and Iraqi blogger Zayed has photographs from the rally. Album 1, Album 2, Album 3. Blogger Omar is covering the protest too.
posted by swerdloff (65 comments total)

 
Would it be too cliched for me to ask why these Iraqis hate America so much? It probably would.
posted by UKnowForKids at 7:07 AM on December 11, 2003


it doesn't look like "antiwar" pictures... mostly anti-terrorism, whatever that actually means.
posted by oninochuck at 7:19 AM on December 11, 2003


About fucking time. If there will be a stable Iraqi government it will not be by Bush or Bremer, it will be by the masses reporting guerillas to the authorities and respecting the rule of law. Of course this gets more complicated as many view Sharia and fundamentalism as the 'rule of law.'

Also, 1/3rd of the new Iraqi militar/police quit today, so there are both lossess and gains.
posted by skallas at 7:26 AM on December 11, 2003


Also, expect guerillias to target foreign targets and avoid killing fellow countrymen (well, except for Kurds) if they believe their popularity is truly fading.
posted by skallas at 7:28 AM on December 11, 2003


Umm, oninochuck - if the terrorists are considered insurgents and they're attacking people and it's a war, and people are protesting against them, isn't that antiwar? Or is antiwar only when it's against the coalition?

"We're against this war that you insurgents are fighting." If that's not antiwar, then, umm, I don't understand English so good maybe.
posted by swerdloff at 7:37 AM on December 11, 2003


Yes, a Great Day for Iraqis.
posted by hama7 at 7:38 AM on December 11, 2003


Yes, a Great Day for Iraqis.

And thanks for the post, swerdloff.
posted by hama7 at 7:44 AM on December 11, 2003


According to author and photographer: "It wasn't just against terrorism. It was against Arab media, against the interference of neighbouring countries, against dictatorships, against Wahhabism, against oppression, and of course against the Ba'ath and Saddam."

I don't see 'antiwar' in that sentence.
posted by Brilliantcrank at 8:00 AM on December 11, 2003


See my comment above, AkulaIX, on why it's either an antiwar demonstration, or that you have a very limited idea of what antiwar is.

I'm reminded of Tom Tomorrow (one of my favorite cartoonists) who has these creepy button shirted republicans looking all bewildered when his protagonist (Sparky the Wonder Penguin) makes them think about their assumptions, and they inevitably say "you're trying to make one of your little points again" and then go back to being small minded.

And are made to look foolish.

And frankly, Tom (and this is why I like him so much) dished out (I haven't read him in years because I'm a dolt) to both sides of the ideological aisle.

Again, the silence is worth noting around here. Although, to be fair, it's still on 8am in California as I read this, so maybe the core MeFites are still in bed and haven't had a chance to comment yet.
posted by swerdloff at 8:02 AM on December 11, 2003


Message to U.S.S. Clueless: The war ended seven months ago. Please relay where appropriate. Thank you.
posted by magullo at 8:02 AM on December 11, 2003


swerdloff, I think the point is that "anti-war" is generally considered to mean anti-the American led war. As I understand it, this group supports the intervention, and opposes the ongoing terror campaign against the coalition.

See more here, here, and here.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:03 AM on December 11, 2003


Would it be too cliched for me to ask why these Iraqis hate America so much? It probably would.

Yeah it would.

Also, you would probably sound less like an idiot if you actually read the link and realize that the protest is more "anti-terrorists" than "anti-Americans" before posting.
posted by VeGiTo at 8:09 AM on December 11, 2003


Which one was the hottie in Album1? They all looked cute to me.
posted by DenOfSizer at 8:17 AM on December 11, 2003


Is it safe to assume that most of the posts in this thread are going to fall all over themselves with semantic issues rather than acknowledging the positive, compelling aspects of the protests in question?
posted by dhoyt at 8:17 AM on December 11, 2003


Also, on the subject of Zeyad (not Zayed), here's what he wrote on November 22 re: the London protests:


I was ashamed and depressed watching those brainwashed and deluded demonstrators in London carrying signs calling for abandoning Iraq and for an end to aggression. While I can understand people who hold peaceful principles against wars in general but nevertheless wish to see Iraq free and prosperous, I fail to understand the logic behind the thinking that appeasing and understanding terrorists will make this world a better place. It was all the same 'No blood for oil', 'Not in my name', 'Bush is Hitler', 'Stop the war', 'End the occupation', 'Bring the troops home' nonsense over and over again. It was almost like one of our masira's in the dark times of the previous regime. If those people truly dislike Bush they should have kept their mouths shout about other issues which they can never understand and sticked to anti-Bush slogans. The only thing that warmed my heart was watching different self-respecting people carrying banners that said 'Mr. Bush you are most welcome, this lot does not speak for me'. I ditto that and add that this lot surely does not speak for Iraqis either. I'm sure Saddam is proud of you and clapping his hands in glee watching from whatever gutter he is hiding in right now. The fact that Al-Arabiyah station decicated two whole hours covering these demonstration while not a single subtitle about the anti-terrorism crowds marching in Iraq only disgusted me the more.


Of course, what does he know? He's just one Iraqi -- and probably in the pocket of Halliburton, anyway. After all, we here typing on our computers know that the Iraqi people don't support the Americans or the war.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:20 AM on December 11, 2003


Is it safe to assume that most of the posts in this thread are going to fall all over themselves with semantic issues rather than acknowledging the positive, compelling aspects of the protests in question?

Maybe the fact the war ended a half a year ago is a semantic issue. In that (scary) case I'd like to know why this protest is compelling but the many previous ones AGAINST the current occupation (both INSIDE and OUTSIDE Iraq) are not.
posted by magullo at 8:22 AM on December 11, 2003


It's a shame, but not surprising, that I don't see more media coverage of this.

The rest of the world is still looking at the Iraq occupation as a terrible failure because the media puts such a lopsided weight in reporting the "escalating" guerilla war against a comparably small number of insurgents and the fringes of the Iraqi population, whereas the truth is the majority of Iraqis are much happier than they were a year ago, and whose biggest fear is that the American would leave them too soon.

But of course good news don't make very good news story.
posted by VeGiTo at 8:25 AM on December 11, 2003


Juan Cole comments:

The demonstrations for human rights and against terrorism in several Iraqi cities on Wednesday were organized by parties represented on the Interim
Governing Council. Althought the US press has tended to portray these rallies as pro-American, they were far more ambiguous than that. The organizers were able to get out about 5,000 demonstrators in Baghdad, and smaller crowds gathered in other cities. One group that mobilized its cadres for this demonstration was the Iraqi Communist Party. Its supporters waved red flags emblazoned with the hammer and sickle, according to ash-Sharq al-Awsat. It seems obvious that the CPI was more likely demonstrating for human rights and against the
Baathists than in favor of the US per se. Other participants included the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmad Chalabi, feminist groups, and some clerics and their followers. AFP said some demonstrators spoke of their gratitude to the US for overthrowing Saddam, while others called the Baathists "fascists" and vowed they would not be allowed to come back.

Ash-Sharq al-Awsat said that 2500 demonstrators came out in the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala. But they carried placards calling for the immediate turn-over of authority in Iraq by the Americans to the Iraqis. As usual with demonstrations, various groups used them for their own purposes. It is hard to see how a demand that the US give sovereignty back to the Iraqis right now can be seen as pro-American.

posted by y2karl at 8:28 AM on December 11, 2003


What of protests to the south of Baghdad that included calls for a transfer of power to Iraqis? What of Communist Party members who want a quick transfer of power? Did they not happen? Was the message sent here perhaps not a complex one? And what of the protests called by a "local council" in a hotbed of resistance to the west that had American protection, which itself was under attack by stone throwers? Read here.

It doesn't surprise me at all that some people are tired of it all, and just want life to go on, want life to be better. Why would it? But that's not necessarily going to stop terror on its own, is it? It also doesn't change the fact that the war wasn't started to help these people anyway, but to supposedly keep out weapons of mass destruction, and was built on lies. .
posted by raysmj at 8:28 AM on December 11, 2003


"The rest of the world is still looking at the Iraq occupation as a terrible failure ..."

... because the excuse given for the invasion was some WMDs which turned out to be non-existing, a fact still not acknowledged by the interested parties.

But, hey, feel free to blame the media for the state of reality.
posted by magullo at 8:31 AM on December 11, 2003


That fact that these protests and demonstrations can happen, whether pro- or anti-american, is the most convincing proof that the level of freedom the Iraqis enjoy has increased substantially.

You try protesting against Ba'athists, or any ruling party, in Iraq a few months ago. You will get yourself tortured and killed, your family tortured and killed, and possibilly you good friends and your family's good friends tortured and killed.

In a nascent democracy, there will always be protests. It is not possible to create a government that is supported by 100% of the population, due to the fact that any large enough population would have more than one opinion on any issue. A successful free country is not one that have no protestor, it is one where its population openly embrace their right to voice their opinions. Dissent is the crucial ingredient for democracy.

It doesn't surprise me at all that some people are tired of it all, and just want life to go on, want life to be better.

There's still a lot of room for improvement, but life there already is better. They have come a long way.

because the excuse given for the invasion was some WMDs which turned out to be non-existing

The WMDs were the excuse for war, not the occupation. If WMDs were the only metrics for measuring the success of the war, then maybe you can categorize it as a failure. But even giving you that, a "failure" of the war doesn't automatically imply that the occupation that occurred after the war happened is also a failure. Watch your context here. If the Iraq economy booms 5 years from now, will the Iraq economy still be a failure because we still haven't found any WMD?
posted by VeGiTo at 8:46 AM on December 11, 2003


... because the excuse given for the invasion was some WMDs which turned out to be non-existing, a fact still not acknowledged by the interested parties.

So remember, whatever you do, don't acknowledge that any good came of the war!

magullo, some would say the "state of reality" what's actually happening on the ground in Iraq, not in the editorial offices of the New York Times, or at the keyboards of people playing on the internet in the U.S., Britain, or Amsterdam.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:49 AM on December 11, 2003


Regular citizens hate terrorists and other people that kill them. Film at 11.
posted by moonbiter at 8:54 AM on December 11, 2003


Check out the pictures of people holding placards and banners and marching peacefully in protest. It is a most welcome development. We shouldn't really care how ambiguous their messages are (pro- or anti-U.S. intervention), or how much the messages conflict (Communists vs. clerics). What's important is the medium (peaceful protest), not the message. The question for Americans is: How do we best support these people -- by withdrawing or by staying?
posted by Holden at 8:59 AM on December 11, 2003


yoh. swerdloff... you dont seriously think the clowny that runs the blog with photos of "iraqi hotties" and links to the israeli backed:

memri.org

anti-defamation league

and

spirit of america

is in fact iraqi?

or perhaps he is ... but one raised in flint michigan and on the payroll of the iraqis biggest clownies
posted by specialk420 at 9:09 AM on December 11, 2003


The protestors also had the protection of American troops and, as Y2karl noted, were organized by American-backed councils. If you take the troops and Americans in general out, you 1) Wouldn't have the protests in the first place; and 2) Wouldn't have the "freedom" to march in them.
posted by raysmj at 9:13 AM on December 11, 2003


Vegito - pray tell me what do WMDs and the economy have to do with each other - and do let me know if you are unsure about the connection between waging a war and the subsequent occupation of the enemy's territory. As I heard somewhere today: watch YOUR context.


pardonyou?

Reality is that the war ended 7 months ago - or was Bush just showing off on the carrier?

Reality is that no WMDs have been found - or have they?

Reality is that the US has lost sight of two of what it calls two of its most dangerous enemies - has it not?

Reality is that despite the "many good things" that he has brought to the Iraqi people, dubya could not risk leaving the airport on his "visit" and in fact had to sneak in with the lights off.

But, hey, I guess you can provide contrast from the ground in Iraq - am I right?
posted by magullo at 9:16 AM on December 11, 2003


I can only hope that their protests in Iraq are more successful at ending their war than our protests were at preventing ours.
posted by Ptrin at 9:19 AM on December 11, 2003


yoh. swerdloff... you dont seriously think the clowny that runs the blog with photos of "iraqi hotties" and links to the israeli backed ... is in fact iraqi?

(Read: He doesn't agree with me, so he must be fake)

The "hottie" thing is an inside joke. When Zeyad received his camera (sent to him -- in Iraq -- by an American blogger, by the way), he asked people what they wanted him to photograph. One person said they wanted him to photograph Iraqi hotties. Thus the picture.

I would think that before you go implying someone isn't who they claim to be, you'd have some actual, oh, I don't know, evidence to back that up? Otherwise you just end up looking foolish.
posted by pardonyou? at 9:27 AM on December 11, 2003


swerdloff, what kind of bizarre co-opting of language are you attempting here? I've been reading about this thing for two days on buzzmachine and other war blogs and not a single one I've seen called it anything but "the anti-terrorism demonstration".

I can see what is being attempted here, to curry favor from people that were against the invasion, but is anyone pro-terror? Aside from a few crazies on both sides, no one wants to see people blown up with bombs strapped to them nor does anyone want to see another plane go into a building. People that protested the war didn't do so because they want dictators to kill people, they just didn't think an all-out invasion against the wishes of most of the world was the best idea.

So of course I'm happy to see something going on iraq by iraqi people, but I don't know if an anti-terror demonstration is saying much.
posted by mathowie at 9:31 AM on December 11, 2003


Otherwise you just end up looking foolish

But if they don't make these claims they end up looking foolish. Anti-US protesters have spent the last 2+ years speaking on behalf of the Iraqi people and saying they know what is best for them.

Now that the Iraqis can speak for themselves and it turns out that the anti-US protesters cared not one wit about the suffering in Iraq but only about their own agenda they must attack.

To do otherwise is to look like a tool.
posted by Mick at 9:37 AM on December 11, 2003


It's definitely a good sign that they can do this in a freer Iraq, but I think it's also highly suspicious considering all of the other suspicious propaganda tricks the administration has done. Protesting terror? It just seems odd.
posted by destro at 9:42 AM on December 11, 2003


Protesting terror? It just seems odd.
Yeah, heaven forbid any Iraqis are actually glad the US is there.
posted by PenDevil at 9:51 AM on December 11, 2003


magullo: A booming Iraqi economy will have to do with the war the same way the occupation has to do with the war - both wouldn't have happened if the war didn't happen.

Right now I am not defending the merits of the war. I am defending the merits of continuing the occupation. Bring your anti-war comments to a thread where they belong, and don't tell me to watch my context when you are the one who is (somehow) bringing up WMDs on a thread about a citizen demostration in Iraq that has nothing whatsoever to do with them.
posted by VeGiTo at 10:00 AM on December 11, 2003


Same sort of coopting of language, Mathowie, that the original "Antiwar" protestors did by calling what they were protesting "antiwar." There was little about the war, and a lot about George Bush. At least at the protests I filmed. Lots of name calling, bush is hitler, antisemitism and antizionism (both, and distinct) but very little about the war itself. I only saw demos in New York, though.

By my reckoning, Dubya declared major combat operations over, but not the war. Mind you, not that anyone who wants to hate Bush would go look at what he actually said. He never said "war's over, go home." He said major combat operations are over. And they are, basically. But there's still a war on.

And anti-war is accurate, if you accept that what's happening, with the Insurgents/Bathists/Terrorists/Whatever are all under the aegis of attacking the military structure of the US in Iraq.

Mind you, I'm well aware of what I said. How many of you would honestly have looked if I'd written "Anti-terrorist demonstrations?" But more to the point - if there's a war being fought, on side by terrorists, and on other side by the US, and the Iraqis are telling to terrorists to piss off, how is that not Anti-war? "There is a war and we want you to stop fighting it." Anti-war.

Kind of like the "Peace" protestors who attacked servicemen. How exactly is that about peace? But they still remain named "Peace" protestors because that's the ends that they're trying to achieve. Here, the protestors are trying to get the Ba'athists, Radical Islamists, Foreign Media, and Foreign Commandos to stop their war on the US forces. Anti-war.

I can see what is being attempted here, to curry favor from people that were against the invasion, but is anyone pro-terror?

Yeah - terrorists, and those who would help them. And those who believe that the ends (getting the US out of Iraq) justify the means (rooting for attacks to increase and the bodycount to grow).
posted by swerdloff at 10:14 AM on December 11, 2003


Previously in the same country: Iraqis protest at US 'terrorism'- 10 October, 2003

VeGiTo - Good luck with an occupation that started on a still-sustained lie - do you see the writing on the wall now?

/In other news, it's bizarre to see the same people that defend freedom of speech in Iraq complain about freedom of speech when it comes to Western media
posted by magullo at 10:22 AM on December 11, 2003


I like swerdloff's wording of the ffp, btw. "Anti-war" should be permitted to label both sides instead of being synonymous with"anti-America".

This makes people realize that there are two sides to every conflict, and both sides are responsible, instead of just "the US caused everything therefore it is all their fault".
posted by VeGiTo at 10:23 AM on December 11, 2003


it's bizarre to see the same people that defend freedom of speech in Iraq complain about freedom of speech when it comes to Western media

Nobody ever complained about the freedom of speech when it comes to the media. News editors are free to print whatever the wish, and *I* am equally entitled to complain about their editorial decisions. No freedom of speech has been violated here. In fact, this is the very basis of freedom of speech.

If you can't understand that, then we're not even arguing on the same page.
posted by VeGiTo at 10:27 AM on December 11, 2003


Think we can get US troops and aWol backed and financed organizations to support and defend American citizens next time we want to protest in Miami?

Aaahh...the good old days when protest was allowed in the US. And when we built schools and infrastructure here in the US with our tax dollars and with actual bids on the contracts, capitalisitc free enterprise style and all.
posted by nofundy at 10:37 AM on December 11, 2003


BTW, use of a misleading FPP headline like "Antiwar protests have broken out tends to indicate these were spontaneous events rather than well planned and executed by the US and our puppets currently in charge. Pravda would have been proud of that one.
posted by nofundy at 10:45 AM on December 11, 2003


BTW, use of a misleading FPP headline like "Antiwar protests have broken out["] tends to indicate these were spontaneous events rather than well planned and executed by the US and our puppets currently in charge.

It's polite to provide a link to the source of the information in a post. In this case, you might link to a picture of your ass.
posted by kindall at 11:03 AM on December 11, 2003


Yeah - terrorists, and those who would help them.

I agree, and feel they are vastly outnumbered and will lose any fight eventually. Anti-terror will always beat pro-terror.

And those who believe that the ends (getting the US out of Iraq) justify the means (rooting for attacks to increase and the bodycount to grow).

I disagree in calling them pro-terror, but if someone is really rooting for body counts on any side to increase, they're so far gone they're not worth arguing about.

So again, to reiterate, I think it's great to see this anti-terror demonstration, whether it is orchestrated or not, but I'm not sure what it amounts to (also why I never marched against the war, I never saw what good it did in the big picture).

I guess it's good to see if there really are loads of pro-terror groups in iraq still roaming free.
posted by mathowie at 11:03 AM on December 11, 2003


There's also the whole "there's actually a free demonstration in Iraq" angle that's pretty good in and of itself, that we take for granted here in the states, where it's ok to have people in the streets protesting against the war, but barely anybody turns up to the anti-terrorism protests (and there was at least one, totally sparsely attended, outside the UN a few months ago).
posted by swerdloff at 11:28 AM on December 11, 2003


It's polite to provide a link to the source of the information in a post. In this case, you might link to a picture of your ass.

Y2karl had already done so. If you had read the postings properly you would already know that.

My ass, your face, only difference is my ass is cuter, you ugly boy. Smooch!
posted by nofundy at 11:35 AM on December 11, 2003


of additonal interest:

CPA Halts Effort to Tally Iraqi War Dead

Nearly Half Of Iraqi Army Has Quit

And to quote Juan Cole Further, from the link above:


The occasion of the demonstrations was actually the international day of human rights.

The numbers reported on such occasions are usually inflated. What is remarkable to me is that the parties who called for the demonstrations were only able to get out a small number of supporters. All these factions together could not produce a crowd the size of the ones Muqtada al-Sadr seems able to assemble at will.

posted by y2karl at 11:55 AM on December 11, 2003


You know Swerdy, this is like the 4th thread in days that you come in and start accusing the Left of things before anything has really been said. In one thread, you argued and ranted with yourself for 10 comments or so. For all you accuse the mefi Left of being mindless drones, blindly blaming everything on Bush, you are more than a little close-minded and blinded yourself. Somehow you managed to turn this thread into a Anti-Anti-Bush thread from the start, when I had come into the thread to comment about how great this was, as I'm sure many other people did as well.

I'm very happy to see the Iraqi people able to demonstrate and protest, no matter what it is for or against. That's a big step. No one wants Iraq to fail. On the contrary, we've always wanted what's best for them. If they are making progress, I'm a bit happier.

Sometimes, you almost come close to making a good point. Lose the vitriol and try to be rational, rather than accusing, and your ideas will be more effective. Unless of course your only motive is to attack and offend? You wouldn't be here just to cause trouble, would you? I'd hope that you would be here to possibly change some minds and facilitate intelligent discussion.
posted by Espoo2 at 12:18 PM on December 11, 2003


My only motive is to attack and offend. Really. I hate it here.

And I hate myself.

I want my mommy.

(Kidding)

Point taken, Espoo2.
posted by swerdloff at 12:30 PM on December 11, 2003


Otherwise you just end up looking foolish.

do you seriously think an everyday iraqi would post links to the anti-defamation link, memri.org, mideastweb.org - all israeli backed sites?

in the interest openess? who is this clown? as i read through his posts suspiciously sound more like something written in the bowels of a building in the green zone - than out in the actual city. and of this farce:


http://www.blogscanada.ca/blog/permalink.aspx/ea9da390-daee-4f65-8e44-b933fe64d70b

http://riversbendblog.blogspot.com a rip-off of the the excellent: baghdad burning
posted by specialk420 at 12:34 PM on December 11, 2003


There's also the whole "there's actually a free demonstration in Iraq" angle that's pretty good in and of itself,

Agreed. This is a very good thing.

that we take for granted here in the states, where it's ok to have people in the streets protesting against the war,

But not the FTAA. We take it for granted even while it's being eroded. We could learn something from the Iraqis on how precious this right is.
posted by homunculus at 12:55 PM on December 11, 2003


There's also the whole "there's actually a free demonstration in Iraq" angle that's pretty good in and of itself, that we take for granted here in the states, where it's ok to have people in the streets protesting against the war.

It's a good angle. It's not a new angle; there have been all kinds of free demonstrations in Iraq, including anti-American ones that make the case for the reality of Iraqi freedom much more persuasively. But the real test for Iraqi freedom happens when their government is established. It's easy to point out how free they are when we don't have the forces there we need to police the country. And the statement "it's ok to have people in the streets protesting against the war" here in the states... well, it isn't wrong, but it's been looking shaky lately. This raises the question of how much the Iraqi freedom to demonstrate has to do with the benevolence of the American occupation, and how much it has to do with the limitations of our power over there. (Before people jump all over me: I think there's a bit of both.)

I do think this anti-terrorism demonstration is a good sign.
posted by furiousthought at 12:57 PM on December 11, 2003


do you seriously think an everyday iraqi would post links to the anti-defamation link, memri.org, mideastweb.org - all israeli backed sites?

in the interest openess? who is this clown?

He addresses those issues, including the fact that he also links to Baghdad Burning:

And while we are discussing Riverbend I wish that readers wouldn't email me any insulting and inappropriate remarks about her. I won't reply to any of these. I don't want to blindly defend her since I'm sure she wouldn't do the same. Her writing had a huge influence on me. I emailed her before I started this blog commending her effort and asking for her advice and she ignored me. Someone recently forwarded me an email from her in which she expresses her doubts about my Iraqi identity. I was sad to hear it but fine with me.

Nevertheless she has her viewpoint and it shouldn't be disregarded just because it doesn't conform yours. Her anti-american or anti-war tone doesn't make it less important. She is the only Iraqi woman writing a weblog at the moment. I don't know anything about Ishtar or where she is right now, I just hope she is safe and will return to blogging. There was another Iraqi woman Zainab who started a blog at realwomenonline.com a while ago but stopped after people mercilessly attacked her. I'll be trying to get more women to blog from Iraq. But in the meantime you have to read all the Iraqi weblogs you can find to get the whole picture. Remember differing views are normal and not a bad thing. No two Iraqis think the same, but everyone wants a safer, stable, prosperous and democratic Iraq I'm sure.

Third, regarding my links to the ADL or the MEMRI. If you don't like them, don't link to them. I'm getting bored of emails bitching about them. I do not necessarily agree with everything on these sites, but nonetheless they are good sources of information on middle eastern and Arabic media. My linking to them doesn't mean I'm: anti-arab, anti-islam, Mossad agent, CIA psyop, Israeli reporter, Bushie, Zionist conspirator, American conservative,...etc. Whatever. People are reading TOO much in between the lines. Enough of that.

Four, when I started this blog I didn't plan to be anonymous. I have posted a profile of myself as a seperate page to give some background. Note that I am not doing this in order to 'prove' anything to anyone. Just to put an end to the endless questions so we can move on to other important matters.

Five, I don't claim my views or opinions to represent all Iraqis. Iraqis are an extremely diverse people on almost every issue. I can however safely assume that educated Iraqis agree with me on many many things.


But again, it probably means nothing to you, since you only allow yourself to believe that all Iraqis hate the Americans, despite ample evidence to the contrary.
posted by pardonyou? at 1:45 PM on December 11, 2003


you only allow yourself to believe that all Iraqis hate the Americans, despite ample evidence to the contrary

>? huh ? i certainly wouldn't blame them if they did, but am missing what i said that might be misinterpreted as the statement above.

im not finding any links to the background on this warm hearted israeli/us/cpa loving iraqi ... but why is there a distinct smell of fish while i scrounge for the aforementioned links.
posted by specialk420 at 2:02 PM on December 11, 2003


Aside from a few crazies on both sides, no one wants to see people blown up with bombs strapped to them

Now, I can understand that those on the side of terrorism for political gain or for sheer love of bloodshed might have an interest in seeing useful idiots blow themselves up whilst taking out a sizeable segment of the innocent civilian population, but I am bewildered as to who on the side of (in this case) the coalition forces, or (in the case of Israel) what person on the side of self-determination, freedom, democracy, defending oneself or one's own country would desire terrorism directed at themselves or others.

I guess it's just the vague "both sides" equivocation that is particularly questionable. Both sides are not wrong, morally. The one that espouses terrorism is.
posted by hama7 at 4:35 PM on December 11, 2003


There's also the whole "there's actually a free demonstration in Iraq" angle that's pretty good in and of itself,

I think this is the main point here, the unambigious point. It's when people try to attach their own meaning (Look! They hate America! Look! They Love America!) to these events that they start to get annoying.
posted by cell divide at 5:25 PM on December 11, 2003


I just want to reiterate/underscore a comment left by nofundy above:

The Bush apologizing commenters then, now support demonstrations eh? Apparently they also support Muslims walking around amongst each other with signs attached to long sticks. Also, it now seems that there are good Muslims in the world -- if these photo albums, are indeed, of any indication.

However, it must be said of them:

-The Bush apologizers support Arabs and Muslims so long as they are not in the USA. For instance, we will not go out of our way to protect a local mosque from vandalism -- though we love you and want to pet you and make you have to not worry about that foolhardy quest for autonomy or even equal rights. We're right-wingers and we'll be the first to tell you nothing is ever fair.

-The Bush apologizers support any demonstration in likewise, support of George W. Bush no matter where it is because the attack, invasion, looting of and manipulation of the American public, the thousands of innocents dead were all finally proven worthwhile on this Lord's day December 11th 2003.

-Bush apologists, war supporters and jingoes are always, as we all know, right.

-Everybody else is wrong. Given enough time we can always prove our infallibility.

-See now, after the dust has settled, we loooooooove Arabs! We told you that all along. That's why we're occupying Iraq after bombing its innocent peace loving civilians, sieging them for more than a decade and handing out no bid contracts to further enrich Freedom Supplying Corporations that your people have died for and ours happen to pay for.

-Of course it wasn't about oil. Though even if it was in the teensiest way about oil, there of course, is a perfectly good explanation. Like we said, give us time. All things will be borne out.

I've got one concept for you automatons to oil your corporate gears with: Terror is when someone becomes terrorized by something they cannot control.

I'd be willing to bet that the bombing, invasion and occupation of Iraq was purty fucking terrifying. Go ahead, conjugate the word. "Terrify" can easily turn into "Terrorism" as in, what ever the fuck it is we're at war with. So then, why did we have to terrify people in order to not terrorize them? Go ahead, answer that. Or better yet, skirt the issue, change the subject, question my humanity or my patriotism. Go ahead.

Oh and then of course, is that obnoxious little fact that won't go away. Hussein wasn't behind the attacks of 9-11.

Or was he?

Again, give the blood thirsty, qualitatively insane Bush apologists time. Like they say: We're always right. I suspect they're gonna be right about that one too.

Hubris, self-deception and oh yeah baby, more to come! Much more of this crap to come.
posted by crasspastor at 5:31 PM on December 11, 2003


Crasspastor I think your comments are out of line. Even the most conservative poster on MetaFilter supports the rights of Muslims in America, is against the defacement of Mosques, etc. Furthermore I believe from the comments here and in other threads, that even the most die-hard war supporter supported the war because they believed that the net gain would be a positive one.

Now I have no doubt that there are literally millions of people in our country who do hold the views you elucidate on above, but they simply aren't in this forum. I defy you to show me one, with the exception of perhaps FreedomParamus, who just says that stuff to get a rise out of people.
posted by cell divide at 5:35 PM on December 11, 2003


My point however, was lit with the irony of allowing for demonstrations but not allowing the same sense in doing so that their own people used in. For or against war, silent about or railing against mosque defacements is one thing, but being all for a demonstration only when it seems you've been proven right, whilst exhibiting the exact opposite sentiment when millions of fellow countrymen did the same in demonstration against the right-wing's Dear Leader before the war, smacks of the epitome of disingenuineness.

It's just straight-up silly that we find our right-wing mefi brethren all of a sudden, all about the, freedom loving, democracy bitten, demonstrating Iraqis. Just as silly as any other newly minted rightwing fan of the rabble-aroused demonstration. Aren't they the one's, who after all, don't believe demonstrations work? Why all of a sudden has this one demonstration in Iraq today changed their tune?

Why? As I pointed out, with probably far too much cynicism in order for it to be fully comprehended (I do that too much!), it's because they're always right about everything. They're living and breathing myth believing true believers.

They're simply not consistent. They're capricious and a friend to the downtrodden only when it is fair weathered. That goes for all of them. Here at mefi and elsewhere.

I call it hypocrisy.
posted by crasspastor at 6:06 PM on December 11, 2003


Kind of amazing how all of these people living so far away in a FOREIGN COUNTRY with their DIFFERENT COLORED SKIN are capable of holding a wide range of opinions on a variety of issues. Funny how not every one of them hates the US, while many (or even most) are certainly not happy with the way things are going. Strange how there can exist an Iraqi weblogger (already an odd minority) who links to sites with pro-Israel stances.

Iraq is a complex place, with inhabitants with a wide range of histories and backgrounds. There is no simple answer to making Iraq a better place, and, contrary to what some might suggest, there never was. But a good start might be to stop trying to pidgeonhole what "Iraqis" think, stop thinking of them as one big homogenous mass, and start actually interacting with them on the issue of reconstructing a government for the people and by the people. I think it might turn out to be very difficult to have anything resembling a real democracy in Iraq; there are too many highly segregated special interests with blood and power on the mind. Democracy and free trade aren't likely to be silver bullets for all of Iraq's problems. They sure as hell haven't made the US a utopia. But we can't address the Iraqis as a single, homogenous, lump of flesh. We'll only make things worse.
posted by kaibutsu at 6:18 PM on December 11, 2003


"For or against war, silent about or railing against mosque defacements is one thing, but being all for a demonstration only when it seems you've been proven right, whilst exhibiting the exact opposite sentiment when millions of fellow countrymen did the same in demonstration against the right-wing's Dear Leader before the war, smacks of the epitome of disingenuineness."

Damn straight.
posted by kaibutsu at 6:20 PM on December 11, 2003


"About 300 of 700 members of the new Iraqi army have resigned, citing unhappiness with terms, conditions and pay and with instructions of commanding officers..."^^^

So they are unionizing already! And the Military no less!

Democracy Rocks!
Does the fact that they can do this mean it is a Great Day for Iraqis?
posted by jaronson at 7:42 PM on December 11, 2003


Since when did soldiers get to "resign?"
posted by raysmj at 9:30 PM on December 11, 2003


An interesting angle on the protest marches. Instacracker busted for his hypocrisy. Same right wing hypocrisy, different name.
posted by nofundy at 10:07 AM on December 12, 2003


Since when did soldiers get to "resign?"

Since Americans took over Iraq and participation in the military became voluntary instead of being the result of a draft.
posted by VeGiTo at 10:19 AM on December 12, 2003


VeGiTo: Get a clue. Until then, a small one: America has a non-draft military, too.
posted by raysmj at 4:11 PM on December 13, 2003




Yes, a Great Day for Iraqis.

And thanks for the post, swerdloff.

posted by y2karl at 11:26 PM on December 13, 2003


« Older Little people doing huge things   |   Drink, drank, drunk... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post