From that site;Originally posted by russ_watters
Baghdad Falls ...and Iraqis rejoice.
Originally posted by BoulderHead
From that site;
Not everyone rejoiced.
"This is the destruction of Islam," said Qassim al-Shamari, 50, a laborer wearing an Arab robe. "After all, Iraq is our country. And what about all the women and children who died in the bombing?" [/B]
"Why did he fall that way? Why so fast?" said Yemeni homemaker Umm Ahmed, tears streaming down her face. "He's a coward. Now I feel sorry for his people."
Feeling betrayed and misled, some turned off their sets in disgust when jubilant crowds in Baghdad celebrated the arrival of U.S. troops.
Mohammed al-Shahhal, a 49-year-old teacher in Tripoli, Lebanon, said the scenes reminded him of the collapse of the Soviet Union. "Those who applauded the collapse of Lenin's statue for some Pepsi and hamburgers felt the hunger later on and regretted what they did," al-Shahhal said.
However, Tannous Basil, a 47-year-old cardiologist in Sidon, Lebanon, said Saddam's regime was a "dictatorship and had to go."
"I don't like the idea of having the Americans here, but we asked for it," he said. "Why don't we see the Americans going to Finland, for example? They come here because our area is filled with dictatorships like Saddam's."
"We Arabs are clever only at talking," Haitham Baghdadi, 45, said bitterly in Damascus, Syria. "Where are the Iraqi weapons? Where are the Iraqi soldiers?"
Three men having tea and smoking in a coffee shop in Riyadh were unsettled as they watched the TV - even though they said they were against Saddam and felt sorry for the long-suffering Iraqis.
"I can't say that I'm happy about what's going on because these are non-Muslim forces that have gone in and I hope they will not stay," said Mohammed al-Sakkaf, a 58-year-old businessman.
Many said they were disturbed by images of U.S. troops lounging in Saddam's palaces or draping the U.S. flag around the head of a Saddam statue.
"Liberation is nobler than that," said Walid Abdul-Rahman, one of the three Saudis. "They should not be so provocative."
In Jordan, hotel receptionist Wissam Fakhoury, 28, said he was disappointed in the Baghdad crowds.
"I spit on them," he said. "Do those crowds who are saluting the Americans believe that the United States will let them live better?" Fakhoury said. Americans "will loot their oil and control their resources, leaving them nothing."
Alias, my point was to show that Russ only focused on the rejoicing, when even within the link he provided there were clearly those who did not rejoice. I don't seek to negate the loss and emotional torment/agony of people by writing them off as being poorly informed. Clearly there is a lot of sorrow involved here despite my personal opinion that collectively Iraqis will be better off without Saddam.Originally posted by Alias
This guy is obviously one of those "glass is half empty" kind of people. He'll probably never be a happy person. And what is this business about "the destruction of Islam" ? This guy is either poorly informed or poorly equipped, or both.
Isn't that ironic. A muslim supporting a dictator who persecutse muslims. Clearly you can't please everyone.Originally posted by BoulderHead
"This is the destruction of Islam,"
Tough to say. He lost another playpen.Originally posted by FZ+
I'd say Osama Bin Laden's pretty pleased right now.
I wasn't paying attention to that part of his statement, thinking it ridiculous. I was listening to this part of his statement;Originally posted by russ_watters
Isn't that ironic. A muslim supporting a dictator who persecutse muslims. Clearly you can't please everyone.
Originally posted by FZ+
I'd say Osama Bin Laden's pretty pleased right now.
Times are hard. The value of the Iraqi dinar has fallen 150 percent since the beginning of the war. Power is out all along the countryside. The Iraqis thank the Americans for their freedom, they desire their help, but they are beginning to ask how long the Americans will stay.
"I think 770 days will be enough," said Ali Shahar, an elementary school principal. "Two years. Rumsfeld promised two years."
This evening, a man's daughter was shot in the back of the head by misdirected American fire. The father wanted an assurance. "Promise me this will not be an occupation by the Americans."
One reporter, lulled into a false sense of security by a day of Iraqis vilifying Mr. Hussein, approached a group of youths at an intersection to ask how they felt about the American military advances.
"Bush good?" the reporter asked, using the English phrase that had become the mantra of the city's eastern districts to overcome the temporary absence of an interpreter. The youths, quickly joined by older, more threatening-looking men with Kalashnikov rifles and shoulder-holstered rockets, responded with a hostility that could have been found almost anywhere in the city until the popular eruptions at dawn today.
"Bush down shoes!" the youths answered, one of them spitting on the ground, meaning that President Bush was good only for being trampled on. "America down shoes!"
The question is, what happens tomorrow?" Ra'ad, a clothing salesman, said in faltering English. "To this moment, I cannot believe we got rid of Saddam Hussein. Where is he? Is he died? We don't know it. Is he going to come back and kill us all Iraqis, to use chemical weapons? We do not know it."
Anybody who paused to talk with cooler-headed people in the crowds quickly picked up reservations about how long the American troops would stay, how quickly and how meaningfully Iraqis would be allowed to begin governing themselves again, even about the risk that the Bush administration might take the American military triumph here as a signal to try to reconfigure power throughout the Middle East in ways that would benefit Israel.
I find killing distasteful. Who would those people be anyway?Originally posted by Alias
While I too am saddened at the lost lives of innocents, I wonder why many find it so acceptable to kill and die in the name of terrorism, but find it so distasteful to kill or die in name of freedom.
Islamic extremists.Originally posted by BoulderHead
I find killing distasteful. Who would those people be anyway?
Oh, ok I get it now. I'm used to Alias blasting away at 'the libs', haha and mistook this for another blast at them. Something to consider after reading his quote again...Originally posted by russ_watters
...is that perhaps those terrorists consider their acts to be performed for their own brand of freedom, not someone elses? I mean how many would willingly commit suicide to promote something they thought was awful?...I wonder why many find it so acceptable to kill and die in the name of terrorism, but find it so distasteful to kill or die in name of freedom.
Originally posted by Alias
The same people who knew of Saddam's ongoing brutality while at the same time said, "Give inspections more time."
Kyleb exactly how many iraqi civilians do you think the coalition killed in the past 3 weeks? And how many do you think Saddam killed in the past 3 weeks and the past 10 years? Your conclusions seem to be based on numbers that are wrong by several orders of magnitude.Originally posted by kyleb
you mean the people that supported the slaughter of more Iraqi than Saddam has been involved with in nearly a decade and quite likely more than the man would have been responsible for from now until he died of natural causes? don't give me any of that "Saddam sympathizer" crap either; my sympathy is for all the dead and injured people in Iraq that did not want this war to happen.
Originally posted by kyleb
none of the attackers were from Iraq Alias, so your argument meaningless.
Oh yes we do.And now it is promising that we won't have to fear Iraqi terrorists in the future.
Hmm... I don't see the war in Iraq as being very successful at correcting the fundamental causes of terrorism. We do have solutions. Shame they don't involve people getting killed.The difference between me and you is in our prospective solutions or lack there of. If you don't agree that the goal is to correct the fundamental causes of terrorism, you aren't a very good troubleshooter and should maybe spend more of your time practicing in the less exact sciences of astrology and numerology where being wrong doesn't really matter.
Did Saddam allow Bin Laden to operate openly? Did the war on Iraq at all hinder his terrorist operations based across Europe? No, that justification was never really validated for the war. All it shows is that Bush Jr is very happy to bark up the wrong tree. He needn't worry at all. Breaking the pre-war promises will make him happier, but are not very neccessary.I'd say he certainly isn't. This was a clear demonstration of what the US can do. No nation will allow him to operate openly ever again. If the US stays in Iraq, and breaks all of its pre-war promises, that will make him happy.
Originally posted by FZ+
Oh yes we do.
How many Iraqi suicide bombers did we have in the past then?
Well, let's hear them.Hmm... I don't see the war in Iraq as being very successful at correcting the fundamental causes of terrorism. We do have solutions.
Originally posted by Alias
The difference between me and you is in our prospective solutions or lack there of. If you don't agree that the goal is to correct the fundamental causes of terrorism, you aren't a very good troubleshooter and should maybe spend more of your time practicing in the less exact sciences of astrology and numerology where being wrong doesn't really matter.
FZ, you are missing a few key components of terrorism: The main one is that terrorism is aimed at civilians. Only one side of this conflict targeted civilians. The US was certainly NOT trying to intimidate the Iraqi people. Quite the contrary, we caused massive celebrations.Originally posted by FZ+
Saddam Hussein is a terrorist, by the same definition that Bush is a terrorist. He uses violence and intimidation for political gain, like all successful politicians.
(threats of) violent action for political purposes
(colins english dictionary)terrorism [trrzm]
1. systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal.
2. the act of terrorizing.
3. the state of being terrorized.
(Merriam Webster's dictionary)Terrorism : 'the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion'
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.