News Iraqis Rejoice Over Fall of Baghdad

[russ_watters]

Baghdad Falls ...and Iraqis rejoice.

Its not over yet though. There are still some pockets of resistance in Baghdad and a few other places. Tikrit is also still not taken. Beyond that though, from now on its just janatorial work (mopping up).

 

[Njorl]

Al Jazeera was showing the celebrations, and stating that they were genuine, that the citizens of Baghdad are glad to see the American soldiers. The Al Jazeera reporters seemed to feel the need to apologize to the Arab world for the joy of the local people, but on the whole, I think what they are reporting is promising.

I think when you consider that Al Jazeera is still in its infancy, was founded by a King, and is staffed by people born, raised and educated in autocratic countries, it does a very good job.

Njorl

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Baghdad Falls ...and Iraqis rejoice.

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?"

 

[Alias]

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]

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.

 

[damgo]

Like many of us liberals have been saying... Winning the war was always the easy part. Winning the peace will be the hard part. Here's an Arab perspective - http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAHZG9OBED.html excerpts:

"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."

 

[BoulderHead]

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.

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.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
"This is the destruction of Islam,"

Isn't that ironic. A muslim supporting a dictator who persecutse muslims. Clearly you can't please everyone.

 

[FZ+]

I'd say Osama Bin Laden's pretty pleased right now.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
I'd say Osama Bin Laden's pretty pleased right now.

Tough to say. He lost another playpen.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Isn't that ironic. A muslim supporting a dictator who persecutse muslims. Clearly you can't please everyone.

I wasn't paying attention to that part of his statement, thinking it ridiculous. I was listening to this part of his statement;
"And what about all the women and children who died in the bombing?"

 

[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.

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by FZ+
I'd say Osama Bin Laden's pretty pleased right now.

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.

It is ironic. Terrorists will attempt to keep the US in Iraq, and goad the US into oppressing the Iraqis.

Njorl

 

[kyleb]

well he did make a lot of nasty comments about Saddam and also his family is probably getting more construction and oil contracts out of this; so i doubt he is really complaining any.

 

[damgo]

A pair of good NYTimes articles:
In Iraq Towns, Allegiances Shift Quickly to Winning Side
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/09/i...09CND-TOWN.html
Emotional Torrent Greets G.I. Arrival in Central Baghdad
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/09/i...CND-STREET.html

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.

 

[BoulderHead]

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.

I find killing distasteful. Who would those people be anyway?

 

[Saint]

Bush is hero now and he will reap oil from iraq.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I find killing distasteful. Who would those people be anyway?

Islamic extremists.

 

[Alias]

The same people who knew of Saddam's ongoing brutality while at the same time said, "Give inspections more time."

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Islamic extremists.

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...

...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.

...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?

 

[Alias]

I agree. The problem is that the terrorists tactics don't work directly, and they are too destructive.

However, now that I think about it, I guess their tactics do work rather well as long as there is strong, moral, and intelligent leadership on the other side. You see, because the correct solution to stopping terrorism also solves the terrorists problems, which is oppression by his government or whatever. So yes, terrorism is useful and instrumental in solving problems.

Shall I issue a fahtwah, or declare a jihad?

 

[kyleb]

none of the attackers were from Iraq Alias, so your argument meaningless.

Originally posted by Alias
The same people who knew of Saddam's ongoing brutality while at the same time said, "Give inspections more time."

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

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.

The worst case estimate for civilian deaths (if we were to believe everything Iraqi state tv told us) is under 5,000.

Compare that with the estimated 2 million who have died in the past 10 years. Now do a little math: 2,000,000 / 10 / 365 is roughly 550 PER DAY. Over a 21 day war, that's 11,500 people. So even DURING THE WAR, there were less Iraqis dying than normal during Saddam's regime. We limited his ability to murder his own people.

 

[Alias]

Originally posted by kyleb
none of the attackers were from Iraq Alias, so your argument meaningless.

You don't have to be from any particular country to be a terrorist.

The fact that none of the 911 hijackers were Iraqis does not change the fact that Sadams regime terrorized his people.

Did you know that virtually none of the Fayahdeen Saddam are from Iraq? That's actually a good thing though, because this will give us a chance to kill terrorists without leaving Iraq.

It's not about Iraq in particular. It is about the causes of terrorism in the Arab world. When you get that, things will make more sense.

 

[kyleb]

your the one being incoherent here Alias, claiming terrorism is useful and instrumental in solving problems as if the terrorists attack was intended to get us invade iraq.

 

[Alias]

You know the American people kyleb, we put things off until the problem slaps us in the face(9/11). Then we do something about it.

It was the slap in the face by the Saudi & Egytptian terrorists that was instrumental in the liberation of Iraq. And now it is promising that we won't have to fear Iraqi terrorists in the future. We are motiviated by the terrorists to provide solutions. You can not deny that.

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+]

And now it is promising that we won't have to fear Iraqi terrorists in the future.

Oh yes we do.
How many Iraqi suicide bombers did we have in the past then?

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Alias]

Originally posted by FZ+
Oh yes we do.
How many Iraqi suicide bombers did we have in the past then?

None. But look at all of the non-Iraqi suicide bombers in Iraq. More terrorists fighting for a lost cause. Not to worry. The coalition military will deal with 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.

Well, let's hear them.

 

[BoulderHead]

I guess I've just never understood whether or not it's ok for the end to justify the means. I thought that generally this isn't acceptable thinking but then other times it becomes very acceptable.
That's it, I'm starting a topic over in general.

[edit]
Crumb, I don't know how to make a poll.

 

[kyleb]

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.

from where i sit it looks like you are the one who has troubleshooting issues if you cannot see that taking Saddam out of power had nothing to do with the goals of the terrorists either way. might as well take up astrology and numerology seeing as how the neo-conservative/neo-christian freaks you idolize are into that crap.

 

[Alias]

kyleb, when are you going to get it?

Saddam Hussein IS a terrorist.

What part of that fact do you not understand?

Are you unclear what the definition of 'is' is. I know of another guy with that problem.

 

[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.

 

[Alias]

According to you, all successful politicians are terrorists?

Would you care to define terrorist in any other way?

 

[BoulderHead]

Haha,
Love that avatar Alias. Between that and the sig. quote you've got a hell of 'thang' going on.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

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.

Your definition is so loose as to be able to include whoever you wish(which is no doubt why you choose to use it). You use a flawed definition. Get a better one. Better yet, get a REAL one.

 

[FZ+]

Look in the dictionary people...

terrorism
noun
(threats of) violent action for political purposes

(oxford english dictionary)

terrorism [trrzm]
n.
1. systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal.
2. the act of terrorizing.
3. the state of being terrorized.

(colins english dictionary)

Terrorism : 'the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion'

(Merriam Webster's dictionary)

Terrorism: n.
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.

(dictionary.com)

Much as it would be nice to change the definition of a word to benefit yourself, or to get a "better" definition whenever you feel like it, that is not a valid method.

 

[Alias]

Merriam-Webster said it best, and that definition is the one Russ used. His point still stands.

 

[FZ+]

Then I fail to see the phantom text limiting it to civilian attacks.

 

[Alias]

The definition says people or property. Russ said people and did not exclude property. His point still stands.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
Then I fail to see the phantom text limiting it to civilian attacks.

FZ+, it doesn't appear there because it is kinda understood that when you attack troops you aren't trying to scare them you are trying to KILL them. Yes, it is possible to use terrorism against troops, but it is pretty rare and generally categorized in the more accurate term "psychological warfare." The US did not try to INTIMIDATE Saddam during the war, we tried (and I believe succeeded) to KILL him.

In fact, our actions toward even the Iraqi soldiers were pretty much the OPPOSITE of terrorism. We practically CAJOLED them into surrendering. The leaflets we dropped didn't threaten to kill them they promised to FEED them.

Much as it would be nice to change the definition of a word to benefit yourself, or to get a "better" definition whenever you feel like it, that is not a valid method.

It must be, but try as you might, you won't get this one changed to be "anyone FZ+ doesn't like"

 

[FZ+]

Nope, mine says everyone uses terrorism to some degree.

The definition says people or property. Russ said people and did not exclude property. His point still stands.

But he limited it to "attacks on civilians". By the definition you support (actually dictionary.com due to stupid labelling on my part), attacks on people and property, regardless of whether military or civilian is terrorism. Hence Russ's declaration that "The main one is that terrorism is aimed at civilians" is not supported by ANY definition I can find. If he can find a good dictionary with that in it, then I congratulate him. But to me that point seems pulled out of thin air.

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

The US threatened the use of force against Saddam Hussien did it not? Is Saddam a person? Was not the goal of the initial ultimatum to coerce him to leave Iraq. Yes. Then the US used terrorism against Saddam Hussein. Whether this act is right or not is not relevant as far as the definition is concerned. And whether you consider the target deserving or not is similarly irrelevant. Who said anything about during the war?
Understand?

 

[Alias]

So everyone that has ever or will ever fight in a war is a terrorist?

Gimme a break!

On your knees and worship the Evil One George Bush!

 

[Zero]

Hmmmm...they celebrated Saddam Hussein, remember? When he had men with guns on the streets, they cheered whatever they were told to...they are conditioned to do that. There are different soldiers with guns now, so I wouldn't take any 'celebration' seriously.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Hmmmm...they celebrated Saddam Hussein, remember? When he had men with guns on the streets, they cheered whatever they were told to...they are conditioned to do that. There are different soldiers with guns now, so I wouldn't take any 'celebration' seriously.

like a mass of mindless pavlovian rats? I would take their celebration seriously, I would also take their pain quite seriously. It's quite simply not your place, or your right to minimize either. I can't even fathom the type of mentality that allows for this type of argument. Christ.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Alias
So everyone that has ever or will ever fight in a war is a terrorist?

Gimme a break!

On your knees and worship the Evil One George Bush!

By the definition YOU chose. Do you wish to change for a "better" one? Or maybe create one that means "anyone Alias doesn't like"?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
like a mass of mindless pavlovian rats? I would take their celebration seriously, I would also take their pain quite seriously. It's quite simply not your place, or your right to minimize either. I can't even fathom the type of mentality that allows for this type of argument. Christ.

Why are you surprised that I don't believe a media or a govenment which prefers comfortable lies to the truth? What is your question, how do I dare question the 'celebrations'? How do you dare to not question it? These are supposedly people who have lived in fear of men with guns and power, now their country is occupied by more men with guns and power, and we aren't supposed to question how they feel about it?


Oh, and my name isn't 'Christ', but the comparison is accurate.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Why are you surprised that I don't believe a media or a govenment which prefers comfortable lies to the truth? What is your question, how do I dare question the 'celebrations'? How do you dare to not question it? These are supposedly people who have lived in fear of men with guns and power, now their country is occupied by more men with guns and power, and we aren't supposed to question how they feel about it?

You seem to be confused. I'm responding to this statement:

I wouldn't take any 'celebration' seriously.

It's quite obviously not followed by a question mark.

Oh, and my name isn't 'Christ', but the comparison is accurate.

You were both equally dillusional?

 

[Zero]

I'll say this: any 'celebration' could easily be staged for propaganda purposes, and I wouldn't put it past the media or the government to bribe some locals into putting on a show.

 

[FZ+]

Hmm... It's possible, but I wouldn't say it is probable at this point in time... Maybe that would be too paranoid?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by FZ+
Hmm... It's possible, but I wouldn't say it is probable at this point in time... Maybe that would be too paranoid?

I admit to being cynical, but I know that there are many reasons for the Iraqis to put on a show, that have nothing to do with being happy having Americans occupying their country.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I'm sure that there are Iraqis are happy that US and British troops have gotten rid of sadam's oppressive government. I'm sure that there are Iraqis who are not, like the deputy director of that museum that was ransacked, people without water or electricity, and people who have to deal with the chaos in the cities.

About the toppling of the sadam statue in Baghdad, I have come across this:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2838.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm
(I don't know anything about the credibility of informationclearinghouse.info, but I know that they have an anti-war slant.)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=396043