• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • Check out Tickling.com - the most innovative tickling site of the year.
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

The "Peace" Marchers

Mike_Edward

TMF Novice
Joined
Mar 8, 2002
Messages
66
Points
0
National Review
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.

edited out excessive blank spacing...Q
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Extremists...

Hard to believe Sharpton wasn't involved in this surrealistic scene somewhere. :sowrong: Q
 
i heard the national review is a well thought out and intellectually respected magazine. i also heard they dont follow the state line, and they are nothing like the soviet paper pravda, except they are identical.

o yea remember when the national review came out strongly against saddams crimes in the 80s, o wait they were committed with the support of the state so they didnt.
 
?

That's your idea of debating the article? Comparing the source to a government run agency in a defunct system, and reaching back in time a few decades to find an example of a misdeed? If we're going to use past history, there's certainly fertile ground to discuss the historic aggression of every nation in Europe/the middle east/Asia/North & South America. At least blame the CIA....get some consistency into the thread. Here's what I would use to rebut the article:


CounterPunch Wire

American Muslim groups are calling on the National Review to apologize for published statements by editor Rich Lowry who suggested that "nuking Mecca" would "send a signal" to Muslims. National Review online calls itself "America's premier conservative website.")

In an online forum called "The Corner," editor Rich Lowry wrote on March 7:

"Lots of sentiment for nuking Mecca. Moderates opt for something more along these lines: "Baghdad and Tehran would be the likeliest sites for a first strike. If we have clean enough bombs to assure a pinpoint damage area, Gaza City and Ramallah would also be on list. Damascus, Cairo, Algiers, Tripoli and Riyadh should be put on alert that any signs of support for the attacks in their cities will bring immediate annihilation..."

"This is a tough one, and I don't know quite what to think. Mecca seems extreme, of course, but then again few people would die and it would send a signal. Religions have suffered such catastrophic setbacks before...And, as a general matter, the time for seriousness-including figuring out what we would do in retaliation, so maybe it can have some slight deterrent effect--is now rather than after thousands and thousands more American casualties."

National Review writer Rod Dreher also took part in the discussion of an attack on Mecca. He wrote: "...I'd say Baghdad, Tehran and Riyadh should make the list, tout ensemble, and maybe even Damascus. As for Mecca, well, it would feel good, but we'd have every Muslim on the planet enraged unto ages of ages..."

"These statements are a call to violence against Muslims and Islam. Inflammatory rhetoric suggesting mass murder and the destruction of religious sites is wildly irresponsible and beyond the bounds of reasoned debate. The National Review should apologize immediately and discipline Lowry and Dreher for their offensive remarks. Hate speech can never be justified or excused," said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad.

Awad added that these statements are part of a disturbing trend in which some commentators attack the faith of Islam under the cover of political debate. (Lowry now says his remarks were merely "sarcastic.") In a September column published on National Review, Ann Coulter wrote: "...We should invade their [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."


This would cast doubt on the motives and veracity of the National Review editors and thus discredit their overall impact.

Rather than throw generalizations around about "following the state line", get specific examples and utilize them for a rousing debate. Why just attack with vague sarcastic retorts? There's plenty of ammunition to be found for an actual discussion of the article and the issue it raises..... Q
 
I'm all for it

If the Iraqis want to free themselves from Saddam Hussein, more power to them. They can do it by themselves. Isn't it funny how concerned Shrub and his handlers are with Iraqi freedom, but have zero concern for other nations living under tyrants (as well as zero concern for the economic health of Americans). Any Iraqi who looks to the U.S. for freedom better remember the cliche about no free lunch. I sympathize with their desire to send Hussein packing. However, these people have no understanding of what America's actual interest in their country is.

God bless all in the anti-war movement.
 
Re: I'm all for it

Stephen said:
I sympathize with their desire to send Hussein packing. However, these people have no understanding of what America's actual interest in their country is.


Why would the Iraqi people care what America's "actual" interest in their country is, so long as they are rid of Saddam? Are you somehow implying that an Allied occupation of Iraq will make life WORSE for the average Iraqi than it currently is under the rule of a brutal despot like Hussein?
 
That's exactly what I'm implying

War will make life worse for Iraqis. And how will you feel when the body bags start coming back to America? Your peers shouldn't die for Shrub's political career. And what's this "Allied" shit? We have no allies, except that boneheaded Bill Clinton wannabe who calls himself a prime minister.
 
Now, now... Don't lose your temper!

War will hardly make life worse for the Iraqis. Those who aren't indiscriminately chosen for torture, imprisonment, and execution by their maniacal "leader" are being slowly squeezed to death by UN-imposed economic sanctions. Sanctions which, by the way, are fully supported by the majority of Europe's "anti-war" nations, as the "oil for food" portions of said sanctions provide a cheap source of petroleum to a great many European oil companies... Such as France's TotalFinaElf.

Want to avoid oil-lust driven genocide? Take Saddam out now.
 
I'm all for it

Yeah, take Hussein out (I don't call him Saddam because I don't know hiom well enough to call him by his first name). That guy should be whacked. Just don't sacrifice one American serviceman/woman or one Iraqi civilian to do it. And no "allied" occupation of Iraq. Let Iraqis take care of business.
 
Therein lies the problem... Ending the current state of affairs in Iraq requires not only the extermination of Saddam Hussein, but his entire political infrastructure. Kill Saddam, and you will only put one of his sons or generals in charge. Take out the Hussein family and Iraq's current General Staff, and the "Special" Republican Guard (the elite "inner core" of Iraq's Republican Guard) will take charge.

If the situation in Iraq could be changed by a single bullet, I would also be against the impending war. Unfortunately, the Iraqi government is just like a tenacious lawn weed: you have to kill the roots, or it will just come back over and over again.
 
Yes, but...

A nation should never make war on a nation that has not attacked first. That's rule No. 1.
 
So we should wait until Iraq launches a chemical, biological, or nuclear attack, (which will likely kill thousands of innocent people) and THEN wage war? I don't understand. Why put those additional lives at risk?

Furthermore, I really don't want to contemplate Washington's reaction, should yet another massive terrorist attack occur within the United States. The use of nuclear weapons was discussed at high levels of the executive branch in the hours following the collapse of the World Trade Center... I shudder to think of what might happen next time.
 
Re: I'm all for it

Stephen said:
Yeah, take Hussein out (I don't call him Saddam because I don't know hiom well enough to call him by his first name). That guy should be whacked. Just don't sacrifice one American serviceman/woman or one Iraqi civilian to do it. And no "allied" occupation of Iraq. Let Iraqis take care of business.

But you know President Bush well enough to call him "Shrub?"

Not very consistent.........:sowrong: Q
 
Not a problem...

Why would it be edited? Do you have to be profane or insulting to get your point across? There's a right way and a wrong way to express what you want to convey....and I'll even help you keep it within bounds if you want to try. Where would you like to start?

"President Bush seems to lack the capabilities that most of our past leaders have demonstrated. His grasp of foreign policy is infantile and the decisions he makes seem to reflect his concerns with the welfare of big business and his chances of possibly being re-elected. I feel that under his guidance we will not achieve anything significant either domestically or on the world stage. Woe and sadness reign....."

Obviously this is NOT going to be edited. It stays within the boundaries of the Forum. It might not be your style, but the use of terms like "I feel" and the lack of blatant nastiness brings it well within the guidelines.....yes?

Q
 
"President Bush seems to lack the capabilities that most of our past leaders have demonstrated. His grasp of foreign policy is infantile and the decisions he makes seem to reflect his concerns with the welfare of big business and his chances of possibly being re-elected. I feel that under his guidance we will not achieve anything significant either domestically or on the world stage. Woe and sadness reign....."


Ok, Ill leave it at that.
 
I don't know the little preppy snit

qjakal, I don't know Shrub and I hope I never have the misfortune of meeting him or any member of his unethical family. The Bushes are scum from the word "go." They make Richard Nixon look like some Tibetan monk.

This is one reason I am so incensed over this coming war. What business has Shrub to decalre it? He never served in the military, he didn't win the election of 2000 and he ought to be doing his job with the economy. So far he's doing a job "on" the economy, with tax breaks for his super-rich buddys and passing the buck to the states This man has no shame, but we need only see his daddy to know why.

To ShiningIce, do not use the word "re-elected" when talking about Shrub. If he wins the presidential election in '04, it will be his first victory in a presidential election.
 
I think Stephen makes an excellent point regarding the current administration's motivations for attacking Iraq. Bush has repeatedly stated in recent days that disarmament AND regime change are necessary to avoid war. I would like to see Saddam ousted as much as anyone, but then again I'd like to see regime change in North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and various other places around the world. In fact, the Bush Administration has looked to Saudi Arabia, who frequently employs the same methods of repression and for some reason seems to produce more than its share of terrorists, to support this action against Iraq. The whole thing smells of oil to me. Whether war is inevitable or not, I wish the Bush administration would stop insulting our intelligence by using the plight of the Iraqi people as a primary motivation for military action.
 
To ShiningIce, do not use the word "re-elected" when talking about Shrub. If he wins the presidential election in '04, it will be his first victory in a presidential election.


Um when did I use that word?? 😕
 
Stephen...

The Supreme Court says Bush won in Florida, and Florida's electoral votes let him win the 2000 election in the Electoral College. Read the Constitution - that's the only vote that counts.

He won. Get over it.

Strelnikov
 
Strelnikov...

everyone knows the part of the consititution that says the citizens don't vote for president is passe. Even George W. "Shrub" Bush does nt like the Electoral College (he found out it has no fraternities). If what happened in 2000 had happened to a Republican, you and your friends would be screaming for an end to the Electoral College. Get over it? When democracy gets slapping the faced, in a country that claims to be the world's bulwark of democracy, it's my duty as an American not to get over it. And I noticed you Republicans could never get over Clinton winning two terms (I didn't vote for him). The nation had to put up with eight years of petulance from utter babies who could accept the will of the majority of voters.
 
Democracy worked fine. You just should have voted for Gore instead of Nader. You would have won hands down plain and simple. However for 4% of the voting population ol'Gore wasn't liberal enough and that cost you the election.
 
Re: Not a problem...

qjakal said:
Why would it be edited? Do you have to be profane or insulting to get your point across? There's a right way and a wrong way to express what you want to convey....and I'll even help you keep it within bounds if you want to try. Where would you like to start?

"President Bush seems to lack the capabilities that most of our past leaders have demonstrated. His grasp of foreign policy is infantile and the decisions he makes seem to reflect his concerns with the welfare of big business and his chances of possibly being re-elected. I feel that under his guidance we will not achieve anything significant either domestically or on the world stage. Woe and sadness reign....."

Obviously this is NOT going to be edited. It stays within the boundaries of the Forum. It might not be your style, but the use of terms like "I feel" and the lack of blatant nastiness brings it well within the guidelines.....yes?

Q
Well spoken Q, and I agree with you! 🙂 can I rub your head?:blush: :blush:
 
What's New

2/22/2025
Visit Clips4Sale for the webs largest selection of fetish clips in one site!
Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Back
Top