To Margaret Hassan, It Matters

The more we have learnt over the last many months, the less defensible Iraq war becomes.

But supporters and defenders of terrorism shouldn`t use Iraq war to advance wider apologies for their own murderous and inhumane ideologies.

There are similarties between war and terrorism, and there are dissimilarities between the two.

``I beg to disagree. If you see no real difference between the decision to kill tens of thousands of people as an act of political terror and the decision to attack military targets despite knowing that this will cause some civilian casualties, then you are also too far gone in your own delusions.``

Self righteous absurdity. The bottom line is that you are justifying the slaughter of the same number of people. Period. Both acts are committed for the sake of attaining some objective. A military objective is in some sense a political one, as at the very least it is carried out within some grand political context. There is a difference, I recognize it. However it is not grand enough to validate one, yet abhor the other. That is how psychopaths reason. All people subscribe at some level to the notion of just war. However, when the test fails, and yet war is conducted, it must necessarily be counted as an act of political terror.

``Again, your allusion to Vietnam and Cambodia is irrelevant here. I was talking about current US policy, not what policy was 40 years ago.``

There has been no change in policy vis-a-vis the application of force to attain objectives. There has been a change of technology, and the resultant changes in tactics and strategy.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

The USA (and its allies ie. UK) has killed over

100, 000 Iraqi civilians so far

#39 Fuzair

1. The present flows from the past. Current US Policy, is no different, if anything more invidious than it was in the past.

2. I am not drawing any moral equivalence between Che Guevara, Nehru, De Gaulle and Slobodan. Nehru had the redeeming virtue of being the genuine leader of the great majority of Indians, De Gualle was a puppet propped by the British and the Americans due to their own exigencies during WW2, and Slobodan, well, at one time he too was one of the benficiaries of US largesse . . .

3. You bloody well can`t discount dastardly behaviour by a state among the comity of nations by simply saying ``what may have happened decades or half a century ago.`` What was mentioned did happen, and all the documentation comes from the US itself, most of it from unclassified government material. History has its own ways of exacting retribution, and history has and is exacting retribution.

4. No sane person defends terrorrists, niether does any sane person defend state-sponsored terrorism. The sole point of Beena Sarwar`s piece is that actions cause reactions, and for a bloody whole lot of time a whole of actions of the US of A have angered and frustrated a whole lot of people. It is such anger and frustration that has lead to and continues to fuel the ``hate America`` syndrome in a lot many societies.

5. It does appear that the Bushes and Kerrys of this world are patently incapable of grasping this one simple fact.

6. Are you suffering from some delusion that the Iranians have forgotten and forgiven what the US state did to Dr. Mossadegh? Have the Turks written off the murder of Adnan Menderiez? Do you think that the Indonesians have slept over the bloodbath in 1966 and the removal of Dr. Ahmad Soekarna from power thriugh US intrigue? Do you honestly believe that the Chileans woke up one fine day and said `` Chalo chorro jee, aisa ho jata hai`` regarding Salvadore Allende`s brutal killing?

By the way, Fuzair, would you let us know what kept you from saying ``Next thing I know, if the Marines hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden, he will be added to this list and proclaimed yet another martyr in the struggle against the Great Satan.`` So far as zalaalat and insaan dushmani are concerned, OBL is Zarqavi`s dadajaan . . .


Wa maa ilaynaa ill al balaagh al mubeen . . .

Siddiqua,

I was referring to current US policy, not what may have happened decades or half a century ago. BTW, your list is very interesting. Are you assigning some kind of moral equivalency between Che Guevara and Nehru? Or between De Gaulle and Slobodan? What is that list supposed to prove? That the CIA is alleged to have tried to kill saints, national heroes and psychopathic murderers? (Also, Hekmatyar was NEVER a member of the Northern Alliance; he was Zia`s personal choice, not the CIA`s.)

By assigning this kind of moral equivalency, the people you cite help destroy their own case. If Che Guevara, a terrorist leading an insurgency, is killed by a CIA-trained army battalion, this is an act of international terror perpetrated on a defenceless victim by the CIA. Grow up and get a grip on your paranoid delusions. Next thing I know, if the Marines hunt down and kill Abu Musa al-Zarqawi, he will be added to this list and proclaimed yet another martyr in the struggle against the Great Satan.

Vertex:
I beg to disagree. If you see no real difference between the decision to kill tens of thousands of people as an act of political terror and the decision to attack military targets despite knowing that this will cause some civilian casualties, then you are also too far gone in your own delusions.

Again, your allusion to Vietnam and Cambodia is irrelevant here. I was talking about current US policy, not what policy was 40 years ago.

Romair#36:
We have had this discussion before. I think that the neocons obejectives were achieved as soon as Iraq was ``broken``. The big challenge now is from the oil lobby and, here, Kerry-Edwards would be less amenable to this lobby than the Bush-Chenny team.

``There is a fundamental difference between, say, Hussein`s decision to gas the Kurds or kill thousands of Shias, and the US decision to attack a target that kills civilians as ``collateral damage.````

There is a difference, not a dramatic or fundamental one. Collateral damage (so-called) occurs not out of the blue, however it is in part expected by military commanders. They full well know that their actions would cause civilian deaths. Not necessarily unintended, as that implies that such deaths were completely unexpected. These deaths are statistically expected albeit not individually desired.

Note that the military action taken by the American military would always be commensurate to the nature of the threat - this is a quality of a professional army, not a `moral` one. A widespread resistance to the American advance by, say, the Iraqi army could have lead to the carpet bombing of Baghdad for example. Both republican administrations have never ruled out the use of nukes in either Gulf War I or II - just in case. If the Iraqis had posed as much threat to the American advance as the Kurdish fighters did to Saddams rule, I think you would see civilian death tolls on the same scale.

Vietnam and Cambodia provide enough proof to suggest that Americans are not above large scale military acts with dire consequences on the civilian population. None of it was ‘intended’ – which of course sounds more like a perverse rationalization rather than a legitimate argument to absolve the American military complex of any wrong doing.

Calling civilian deaths ‘collateral’ damage is quite similar to terrorist thinking. It is one thing to have women and children appear in middle of nowhere in the middle of the desert and die in a crossfire, and have their killers convincingly call their deaths ‘regrettable’. It`s quite another to think that an anemic ``oops`` justifies, (and that`s exactly what collateral damage connotes), the killing of civilians in, say, densely packed urban centers.

``At another level, it does matter. Who would you rather have ruling you? Someone who deliberately decides to kill hundreds of thousands of defenseless civilians in order to stay in power? Or someone who realizes that civilian casualties are an inevitable side effect of military action and tries (however diligently) to minimize these casualties? ``

Again, a very bad example. In the case of the latter, they almost always talk about other people to achieve a military objective...not their own country folk. A good number of Americans, and certainly the military establishment, would NEVER support shock and awe over any region of American territory (to their credit)...however they see no problem in doing such to the Iraqis. As a result, a claim could be made quite rightly that Saddam cared for his people as much as the Bushites do...that is to say, they don`t care much at all.

Dost-Mittar #32: I agree with the solution you have presented, as the best scenario. Kerry does have an achilles heal also, though. And that is Israel. He will have to check with Sharon, before he can carry out the above-mentioned scenario. It was Isreali lobby`s neo-con reps, who started this whole thing. Some, like Perle, having literally worked for Israeli govts. Sharon may veto what you are suggesting.

However, in the big scheme of things, the resistance is the best thing that could have happened for the world. Here I am only talking about the resistance to US forces, and not about the kidnappings and beheadings of innocents.

The resistance has stopped the USA in its tracks. It has made fools out of the neo-cons. And most of all, it has given the Democratic party a conscious. Uptil the resistance, even the Kerrys of the world were voting for the Iraqi invasion.

If elections are held fairly, maulvis will get elected in Iraq. This is what always happens in such scenarios. The secular elites migrate out of the country or join the invading party. While the maulvis are left to do the fighting. This is what happened in Afghanistan. So Sistani`s group will form the govt. and Sadr`s group will form the opposition.

I am really waiting to see how the USA will deal with an Iraqi govt. of Irani-born Ayatollahs....Its a damned if you do and damned if you don`t scenario for everyone, including the USA and Iraq.

Siddiqua

This reminds me of the invasive involvement of the CIA in Pakistan.

There are evidences of the Agency`s shenanigans in the country since its inception. A certain general Mohammad Ayub Khan was said to be very close to Allen W. Dulles, the Director of the CIA in the early fifties to early sixties.

The CIA was also very close to some political parties in Pakistan. One of their front organizations, the Franklin Foundation, with offices in Karachi, Lahore and Dacca, was the biggest buyer of the works of Maulana Maudoodi and other books by the Jama`at Islami, which were distributed free among people.

At one time they were also very active among the PIA trade union so much so that it was standing street wisdom that PIA = CIA.

Allegations, supported with circumstantial and documentary evidence, also were made by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, of the CIA`s interference in the March 1977 general elections in Pakistan.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#28 Fuzair

It seems your contention is that the US of A is still “humane enough” to care to inflict the minimum possible collateral damage when waging an unprovoked and unnecessary war against a patently defenceless people.

I differ.

Between Abraham Lincoln’s presidency, of revered memory, and today, there are some hundred and twenty odd years. During this period, while the US society has evolved into one of the world’s most open, free and tolerant societies, the US state has evolved into one of the most hypocritical, duplicious and predatory states.

Some food for your thought.

“If the Guinness Book of World Records included a category for ``cynicism``, one could suggest the CIA`s creation of ``leftist`` organizations which condemned poverty, disease, illiteracy, capitalism, and the United States in order to attract committed militants and their money away from legitimate leftist organizations.

The tiny nation of Ecuador in the early 1960s was, as it remains today, a classic of banana-republic underdevelopment; virtually at the bottom of the economic heap in South America; a society in which one percent of the population received an income comparable to United States upper-class standards, while two-thirds of the people had an average family income of about ten dollars per month -- people simply outside the money economy, with little social integration or participation in the national life; a tale told many times in Latin America.

In September 1960, a new government headed by José María Velasco Ibarra came to power. Velasco had won a decisive electoral victory, running on a vaguely liberal, populist, something-for- everyone platform. He was no Fidel Castro, he was not even a socialist, but he earned the wrath of the US State Department and the CIA by his unyielding opposition to the two stated priorities of American policy in Ecuador: breaking relations with Cuba, and clamping down hard on activists of the Communist Party and those to their left.

Over the next three years, in pursuit of those goals, the CIA left as little as possible to chance. A veritable textbook on covert subversion techniques unfolded. In its pages could be found the following, based upon the experiences of Philip Agee, a CIA officer who spent this period in Ecuador.

Almost all political organizations of significance, from the far left to the far right, were infiltrated, often at the highest levels. Amongst other reasons, the left was infiltrated to channel young radicals away from support to Cuba and from anti-Americanism; the right, to instigate and co-ordinate activities along the lines of CIA priorities. If, at a point in time, there was no organization that appeared well-suited to serve a particular need, then one would be created.
In Ecuador, as throughout most of Latin America, the Agency planted phoney anti-communist news items in co-operating newspapers. These items would then be picked up by other CIA stations in Latin America and disseminated through a CIA-owned news agency, a CIA- owned radio station, or through countless journalists being paid on a piece-work basis, in addition to the item being picked up unwittingly by other media, including those in the United States. Anti-communist propaganda and news distortion (often of the most far-fetched variety) written in CIA offices would also appear in Latin American newspapers as unsigned editorials of the papers themselves.
In virtually every department of the Ecuadorean government could be found men occupying positions, high and low, who collaborated with the CIA for money and/or their own particular motivation. At one point, the Agency could count amongst this number the men who were second and third in power in the country.
These government agents would receive the benefits of information obtained by the CIA through electronic eavesdropping or other means, enabling them to gain prestige and promotion, or consolidate their current position in the rough-and-tumble of Ecuadorean politics. A high-ranking minister of leftist tendencies, on the other hand, would be the target of a steady stream of negative propaganda from any or all sources in the CIA arsenal; staged demonstrations against him would further increase the pressure on the president to replace him.
Agency financing of conservative groups in a quasi-religious campaign against Cuba and ``atheistic communism`` helped to seriously weaken President Velasco`s power among the poor, primarily Indians, who had voted overwhelmingly for him, but who were even more deeply committed to their religion. If the CIA wished to know how the president was reacting to this campaign it need only turn to his physician, its agent, Dr. Felipe Ovalle, who would report that his patient was feeling considerable strain as a result.
CIA agents would bomb churches or right-wing organizations and make it appear to be the work of leftists. They would march in left-wing parades displaying signs and shouting slogans of a very provocative anti-military nature, designed to antagonize the armed forces and hasten a coup.
The Agency did not always get away clean with its dirty tricks. During the election campaign, on 19 March 1960, two senior colonels who were the CIA`s main liaison agents within the National Police participated in a riot aimed at disrupting a Velasco demonstration. Agency officer Bob Weatherwax was in the forefront directing the police during the riot in which five Velasco supporters were killed and many wounded. When Velasco took office, he had the two colonels arrested and Weatherwax was asked to leave the country.
Finally, in November 1961, the military acted. Velasco was forced to resign and was replaced by Vice-President Carlos Julio Arosemana. There were at this time two prime candidates for the vice-presidency. One was the vice-president of the Senate, a CIA agent. The other was the rector of Central University, a political moderate. The day that Congress convened to make their choice, a notice appeared in a morning paper announcing support for the rector by the Communist Party and a militant leftist youth organization. The notice had been placed by a columnist for the newspaper who was the principal propaganda agent for the CIA`s Quito station. The rector was compromised rather badly, the denials came too late, and the CIA man won. His Agency salary was increased from $700 to $1,000 a month.

Arosemana soon proved no more acceptable to the CIA than Velasco. All operations continued, particularly the campaign to break relations with Cuba, which Arosemana steadfastly refused to do. The deadlock was broken in March 1962 when a military garrison, led by Col. Aurelio Naranjo, gave Arosemana 72 hours to send the Cubans packing and fire the leftist Minister of Labor. (There is no need to point out here who Naranjo`s financial benefactor was.) Arosemana complied with the ultimatum, booting out the Czech and Polish delegations as well at the behest of the new cabinet which had been forced upon him.

At the CIA station in Quito there was a champagne victory celebration. Elsewhere in Ecuador, people angry about the military`s domination and desperate about their own lives, took to arms. But on this occasion, like others, it amounted to naught ... a small band of people, poorly armed and trained, infiltrated by agents, their every move known in advance -- confronted by a battalion of paratroopers, superbly armed and trained by the United States. That was in the field. In press reports, the small band grew to hundreds; armed not only to the teeth, but with weapons from ``outside the country`` (read Cuba), and the whole operation very carefully planned at the Communist Party Congress the month before.

On 11 July 1963 the Presidential Palace in Quito was surrounded by tanks and troops. Arosemana was out, a junta was in. Their first act was to outlaw communism; ``communists`` and other ``extreme`` leftists were rounded up and jailed, the arrests campaign being facilitated by data from the CIA`s Subversive Control Watch List. (Standard at many Agency stations, this list would include not only the subject`s name, but the names and addresses of his relatives and friends and the places he frequented -- anything to aid in tracking him down when the time came.)

Civil liberties were suspended; the 1964 elections canceled; another tale told many times in Latin America.

And during these three years, what were the American people told about this witch`s brew of covert actions carried out, supposedly, in their name? Very little, if anything, if the New York Times is any index. Not once during the entire period, up to and including the coup, was any indication given in any article or editorial on Ecuador that the CIA or any other arm of the US government had played any role whatever in any event which had occurred in that country. This is the way the writings read even if one looks back at them with the advantage of knowledge and hindsight and reads between the lines.

There is a solitary exception. Following the coup, we find a tiny announcement on the very bottom of page 20 that Havana radio had accused the United States of instigating the military takeover.{2} The Cuban government had been making public charges about American activities in Ecuador regularly, but this was the first one to make the New York Times. The question must be asked: Why were these charges deemed unworthy of reporting or comment, let alone investigation?
NOTES
1. Philip Agee, Inside the Company: CIA Diary (New York, 1975) pp. 106-316, passim. Agee`s book made him Public Enemy No. One of the CIA. In a review of the book, however, former Agency official Miles Copeland -- while not concealing his distaste for Agee`s ``betrayal`` -- stated that ``The book is interesting as an authentic account of how an ordinary American or British `case officer` operates ... As a spy handler in Quito, Montevideo and Mexico City, he has first-hand information ... All of it, just as his publisher claims, is presented `with deadly accuracy`.`` (The Spectator, London, 11 January 1975, p. 40.)


2. New York Times, 14 July 1963, p. 20. For an interesting and concise discussion of the political leanings of Velasco and Arosemana, see John Gerassi, The Great Fear in Latin America (New York, 1965, revised edition) pp. 141-8.”

“According to Alfred W. McCoy in The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia, CIA arms, money, and disinformation enabled Corsican criminal syndicates in Marseille to wrestle control of labor unions from the Communist Party. The Corsicans gained political influence and control over the docks — ideal conditions for cementing a long-term partnership with mafia drug distributors, which turned Marseille into the postwar heroin capital of the Western world. Marseille`s first heroin laboratories were opened in 1951, only months after the Corsicans took over the waterfront.”
“The Nugan Hand Bank of Sydney was a CIA bank in all but name. Among its officers were a network of US generals, admirals and CIA men, including fommer CIA Director William Colby, who was also one of its lawyers. With branches in Saudi Arabia, Europe, Southeast Asia, South America and the U.S., Nugan Hand Bank financed drug trafficking, money laundering and international arms dealings. In 1980, amidst several mysterious deaths, the bank collapsed, $50 million in debt. (See Jonathan Kwitny, The Crimes of Patriots: A True Tale of Dope, Dirty Money and the CIA, W.W. Norton & Co., 1987.)”

“For more than a decade, Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega was a highly paid CIA asset and collaborator, despite knowledge by U.S. drug authorities as early as 1971 that the general was heavily involved in drug trafficking and money laundering. Noriega facilitated ``guns-for-drugs`` flights for the contras, providing protection and pilots, as well as safe havens for drug cartel officials, and discreet banking facilities. U.S. officials, including then-ClA Director William Webster and several DEA officers, sent Noriega letters of praise for efforts to thwart drug trafficking (albeit only against competitors of his Medellin Cartel patrons). The U.S. government only turned against Noriega, invading Panama in December 1989 and kidnapping the general, once they discovered he was providing intelligence and services to the Cubans and Sandinistas. Ironically drug trafficking through Panama increased after the US invasion. (John Dinges, Our Man in Panama, Random House, 1991; National Security Archive Documentation Packet The Contras, Cocaine, and Covert Operations.)”

“ClA-supported Mujahedeen rebels [now, 2001, part of the ``Northern Alliance``] engaged heavily in drug trafficking while fighting against the Soviet-supported government and its plans to reform the very backward Afghan society. The Agency`s principal client was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, one of the leading druglords and a leading heroin refiner. CIA-supplied trucks and mules, which had carried arms into Afghanistan, were used to transport opium to laboratories along the Afghan/Pakistan border. The output provided up to one half of the heroin used annually in the United States and three-quarters of that used in Western Europe. U.S. officials admitted in 1990 that they had failed to investigate or take action against the drug operation because of a desire not to offend their Pakistani and Afghan allies. In 1993, an official of the DEA called Afghanistan the new Colombia of the drug world.”

“According to Representative Charles Wilson, a Texas Democrat,
“There were 58,000 dead in Vietnam and we owe the Russians one.... I have a slight obsession with it, because of Vietnam. I thought the Soviets ought to get a dose of it.... I`ve been of the opinion that this money was better spent to hurt our adversaries than other money in the Defense Department budget.” A disproportionate share of U.S. arms went to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, ``a particularly fanatical fundamentalist and woman-hater.``` According to journalist Tim Weiner, `` [Hekmatyar`s] followers first gained attention by throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil. CIA and State Department officials I have spoken with call him `scary,` `vicious,` `a fascist,` `definite dictatorship material.`` With the support of Pakistan`s military dictator, General Zia-ul-Haq, the U.S. began recruiting and training both mujahideen fighters from the 3 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan and large numbers of mercenaries from other Islamic countries. The CIA became the grand coordinator. Beginning in 1985, the CIA supplied mujahideen rebels with extensive satellite reconnaissance data of Soviet targets on the Afghan battlefield, plans for military operations based on the satellite intelligence, intercepts of Soviet communications, secret communications networks for the rebels, delayed timing devices for tons of C-4 plastic explosives for urban sabotage, and sophisticated guerrilla attacks, long-range sniper rifles, a targeting device for mortars that was linked to a U.S. Navy satellite, wire-guided anti-tank missiles, and other equipment. Between 1986 and 1989, the mujahideen were also provided with more than 1,000 state-of-the-art, shoulder-fired Stinger antiaircraft missiles. Although the CIA claimed that the purpose was to attack military targets, mujahideen trained in these techniques, and using chemical and electronic-delay bomb timers supplied by the U.S., carried out numerous car bombings and assassination attacks in Kabul itself.
Between 1982 and 1992, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 43 Islamic countries East would pass their baptism under fire with the Afghan mujahideen. Eventually the number would rise to more than a 100,000. One of the first non-Afghan volunteers to join the ranks of the mujahideen was Osama bin Laden, a civil engineer and businessman from a wealthy construction family in Saudi Arabia, with close ties to members of the Saudi royal family. . He also worked closely with the CIA, raising money from private Saudi citizens. By 1984, he was running the Maktab al-Khidmat, an organization set up by the ISI to funnel ``money, arms, and fighters from the outside world in the Afghan war.``
``In 1988, with U.S. knowledge, bin Laden created Al Qaeda (The Base): a conglomerate of quasi independent Islamic terrorist cells spread across at least 26 countries,`` writes Indian journalist Rahul Bhedi. ``Washington turned a blind eye to Al-Qaeda, confident that it would not directly impinge on the U.S.`` After the Soviet withdrawal, however, bin Laden and thousands of other volunteers returned to their own countries.
Since September 11, [2001] CIA officials have been claiming they had no direct link to bin Laden. These denials lack credibility. In the trial of defendants accused of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombing in Kenya it was disclosed that the CIA had shipped high-powered sniper rifles directly to bin Laden`s operation in 1989. Even the Tennessee-based manufacturer of the rifles confirmed this.

“The U.S. government was well aware of the Taliban`s reactionary program, yet it chose to back their rise to power in the mid-1990s. The creation of the Taliban was ``actively encouraged by the ISI and the CIA,`` according to Selig Harrison, an expert on U.S. relations with Asia. ``The United States encouraged Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to support the Taliban, certainly right up to their advance on Kabul.`` When the Taliban took power, State Department spokesperson Glyn Davies said that he saw ``nothing objectionable`` in the Taliban`s plans to impose strict Islamic law, and Senator Hank Brown, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Near East and South Asia, welcomed the new regime: ``The good part of what has happened is that one of the factions at last seems capable of developing a new government in Afghanistan.`` ``The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis. There will be Aramco [the consortium of oil companies that controlled Saudi oil], pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that,`` said another U.S. diplomat in 1997.
U.S. GOVERNMENT ASSASSINATION PLOTS
The U.S. bombing of Iraq, June 26, 1993, in retaliation for an alleged Iraqi plot to assassinate former president George Bush, ``was essential,`` said President Clinton, ``to send a message to those who engage in state-sponsored terrorism ... and to affirm the expectation of civilized behavior among nations.`` *
Following is a list of prominent foreign individuals whose assassination (or planning for same) the United States has been involved in since the end of the Second World War. The list does not include several assassinations in various parts of the world carried out by anti-Castro Cubans employed by the CIA and headquartered in the United States.
1949 - Kim Koo, Korean opposition leader
1950s - CIA/Neo-Nazi hit list of numerous political figures in West Germany
1950s - Chou En-lai, Prime minister of China, several attempts on his life
1950s, 1962 - Sukarno, President of Indonesia
1951 - Kim Il Sung, Premier of North Korea
1953 - Mohammed Mossadegh, Prime Minister of Iran
1950s (mid) - Claro M. Recto, Philippines opposition leader
1955 - Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India
1957 - Gamal Abdul Nasser, President of Egypt
1959, 1963, 1969 - Norodom Sihanouk, leader of Cambodia
1960 - Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Kassem, leader of Iraq
1950s-70s - José Figueres, President of Costa Rica, two attempts on his life
1961 - Francois ``Papa Doc`` Duvalier, leader of Haiti
1961 - Patrice Lumumba, Prime Minister of the Congo (Zaire)
1961 - Gen. Rafael Trujillo, leader of Dominican Republic
1963 - Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam
1960s - Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, many attempts on his life
1960s - Raúl Castro, high official in government of Cuba
1965 - Francisco Caamaño, Dominican Republic opposition leader
1965-6 - Charles de Gaulle, President of France
1967 - Che Guevara, Cuban leader
1970 - Salvador Allende, President of Chile
1970 - Gen. Rene Schneider, Commander-in-Chief of Army, Chile
1970s, 1981 - General Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama
1972 - General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Panama Intelligence
1975 - Mobutu Sese Seko, President of Zaire
1976 - Michael Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica
1980-1986 - Muammar Qaddafi, leader of Libya, several plots and attempts upon his life
1982 - Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of Iran
1983 - Gen. Ahmed Dlimi, Moroccan Army commander
1983 - Miguel d`Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua
1984 - The nine comandantes of the Sandinista National Directorate
1985 - Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanese Shiite leader (80 people killed in the attempt)
1991 - Saddam Hussein, leader of Iraq
1998, 2001-2 - Osama bin Laden, leading Islamic militant
1999 - Slobodan Milosevic, President of Yugoslavia

Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II by William Blum


Perhaps all this will help throw some light on the “humane” face of the US state.


Siddiqua Haqnawaa

Romair#24
Americans leaving now will be the worst scenario for Iraq. It will turn into a situation worse than that in Afghanistan, with Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Syria all supporting one or the other faction in the ensuing civil war that is bound to happen. It will eventually lead to a break-up of Iraq into three or more countries, which is certainly not in the Arab interests.

I think that the best of the bad scenarios would be a John Kerry victory followed by the security council taking over the mandate from the ``coalition of the willing``, followed by the induction of arab/muslim peacekeeping forces to replace the americans. The only problem is the oil lobby in the US which would not like this scenario because they wont be able to have the monopoly over Iraqi oil and reconstruction contracts to make obscene profits on the backs of the rich americans and poor iraqis.

Fuzair #28: ``Of course there have been substantial civilian casualties BUT the US at least pays some attention to minimizing them.``

I don`t agree, at all. Statistical evidence completely goes against what you are saying. The USA massages and manipulates the media far better than others, regarding the number of people it kills, and why it kills them. That is all. It was even able to paint Saddam, himself, as a, ``good guy,`` in the 80s, when he was on the USA`s side. In the end, one should rely on simple mathematics. A dead Iraqi is a dead Iraqi. If Rumsfeld orders Abu Ghuraib and then apologizes for it, when he gets caught, and fires a Saergent or two, does that make him better than someone who never got caught or did not apologize.

People like Saddam kill directly, by holding the gun in their hands, or throwing gas on people. The kill at a lower tactical level and thus in fewer numbers. The US govt. kills at a much more abstract and higher strategic level, and thus at a much larger level, as well. The US President does not hold the gun himself. He just orders tens of thousands of sorties with bombs to be dropped through fluffy clouds, without letting anyone see whom the bombs are falling on, to fulfill his own political objectives.

I am not sure how familiar you are with US bombing tactics. There is only one aim, i.e. to ensure an American does not get killed. Rumsfeld doesn`t go and say, ``Let`s kill ragheads.: What he does say, however, is, ``Make sure our guys don`t get killed and if ragheads get killed, we will consider it collateral damage.`` The end result is the same.

The USA has 100% air superiority in Iraq. Its pilots can take hours before firing a missile. It has, ``smart`` and, ``brilliant`` weapons, which can be targeted to hit a window. Yet it has killed upto 15,000 innocents in a country, which never threatened it. Either its pilots are completely incompetent, or it is not bothered about civilians (other than its own civilians). In addition, it went into Iraq knowing fully well, it will kill innocents. And every other day, it launches missiles on targets killing innocents.

It just massages the news better, and does it with finnesse. However every now and then, the truth comes out. The following discussions are much more dangerous than any comment about killing ragheads. This is how US foreign policy is formed, before the President comes out and talks about the pain he feels for the innocent Iraqis being killed:

``Albright was asked, ``Half a million Iraqi children have died - more children than
died in Hiroshima. Is the price worth it?`` Albright`s answer: ``Yes, we think the price is worth it.`` (http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/uranium.html)

If you are sitll not convinced, I would encourage you to read the, ``Ramsey Report`` by US Attorney General Ramsy Clark, about Gulf War 1 and post-Gulf War scenario.. Do read it in detail. http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm

``As a result of the bombing of facilities essential to civilian life, residential and other civilian buildings and areas, at least 125,000 men, women and children were killed. The Red Crescent Society of Jordan estimated 113,000 civilian dead, 60% children, the week before the end of the war.``

``The numbers are revealing and staggering. In part, they include:

2,095 HARM missiles
217 Walleye missiles
5,276 guided anti-tank missiles
44,922 cluster bombs and rockets
136,755 conventional bombs
4,077 guided bombs[1]

The conventional unguided bomb (so-called ``dumb bomb``) was the most commonly used weapon in the massacre. These come in four types: the Mk 82 (500 lbs), Mk 83 (1,000 lbs), Mk 84 (2,000 lbs), and the M117 (750 lbs). In all some 150,000 to 170,000 of these bombs were dropped during the war. ``

I don`t think anything Saddam Hussain has done to Iraq can be defended. Nor should it be. I just find it odd when individuals, including yourself, try to paint the even larger damage done by USA to Iraq, as something that was unintentional. Are you seriously suggesing the USA has unintentionally killed the above-mentioned figures of human beings?

All said and done, Iraq was a better place to live, under Saddam (especially pre-Gulf War 1) than it is today, under Bush. And far more Iraqis, based on statistical evidence, have been killed by American bombs and sanctions, than by Saddam. And Americans have dropped far far more tonnage of bombs on Iraq than Saddam ever did.

This is not say Saddam was a great guy. It is just to highlight the low-levels that America`s inhumane foreign policy has stooped to. Yet there are still individuals, out there, trying to make excuses for it. I find that amazing.........

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

People like Margaret Hassan represent the carrot aspect of the carrot & stick approach of neo-imperialists and neo-colonialist thugs to enslave helpless third world countries and plunder their natural resources. They are the cover; the mask behind which these evil empires do their evil deeds. As a person Margaret might be a great human being and a philinthropist etc. but unfortunately she is just the affront to the ugly face of West. We, sitting thousands of miles away from the areas of conflict can afford the niceties of moral and legal aspects of abduction and probable beheadings of people like Margaret but those whose houses are being bombed and those whose women and children are being evaporated out of existence everyday; those whose everyday of their lives is the 9/11 may not be able to afford the niceties of being rational, moral, and being legal. I know, I wouldn`t. How about you?

#24 Romair

In an interview with the weekly ``Le Nouvel Observateur``, Paris, for January 15-21 1998, Zbigniew Brzezinski, US President Carter`s National Security adviser, said, and I quote,

``Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [``From the Shadows``], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn`t quite that. We didn`t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn`t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don`t regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn`t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries. `` End of Quote.

One has to find out what caused Sardar Daoud`s fall, what (who) brought the PDPA to power. One has to try and learn how many hats Hafizullah Amin wore, why Nur Mohammad Tarahki was killed, and what lead to Amin`s removal from power.

And over and above and beyond that, one has to find out what, how and why people like Burhanuddin Rabbani, Abdur Rab Rasul sayyaf, Yunus Khalis, Sibghatullah Mujaddadi and Gulbuddin Hekmetyar were being accomodated, afforded state patronage and protection and being breastfed by the powers that were in Pakistan [This is a fact often trumpted by the Jama`at Islami, Pakistan], since much before the PDPA take-over in Afghanistan as well as after that take-over.

For the US, what the AlQaeda and the Taliban did was just chickens coming home to roost. It was the US, aided by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia [the Saudis matched dollar for dollar whtever money the US poured into Afghanistan] Egypt and Iran, that interfered in Afghanistan, provoked the Soviets to move in, and spawned first the AlQaeda and then the Taliban, perhaps the tow most vicious, unscrupulous, and destructive, ideologically motivated organizations known to history.

The US and Pakistan`s various governments cannot be absolved from the unholy mess the world is in today.

#24 Romair

In an interview with the weekly ``Le Nouvel Observateur``, Paris, for January 15-21 1998, Zbigniew Brzezinski, US President Carter`s National Security adviser, said, and I quote,

``Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [``From the Shadows``], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn`t quite that. We didn`t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn`t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don`t regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn`t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries. `` End of Quote.

One has to find out what caused Sardar Daoud`s fall, what (who) brought the PDPA to power. One has to try and learn how many hats Hafizullah Amin wore, why Nur Mohammad Tarahki was killed, and what lead to Amin`s removal from power.

And over and above and beyond that, one has to find out what, how and why people like Burhanuddin Rabbani, Abdur Rab Rasul sayyaf, Yunus Khalis, Sibghatullah Mujaddadi and Gulbuddin Hekmetyar were being accomodated, afforded state patronage and protection and being breastfed by the powers that were in Pakistan [This is a fact often trumpted by the Jama`at Islami, Pakistan], since much before the PDPA take-over in Afghanistan as well as after that take-over.

For the US, what the AlQaeda and the Taliban did was just chickens coming home to roost. It was the US, aided by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia [the Saudis matched dollar for dollar whtever money the US poured into Afghanistan] Egypt and Iran, that interfered in Afghanistan, provoked the Soviets to move in, and spawned first the AlQaeda and then the Taliban, perhaps the tow most vicious, unscrupulous, and destructive, ideologically motivated organizations known to history.

The US and Pakistan`s various governments cannot be absolved from the unholy mess the world is in today.

Romair,

My reply was simply drawing the logical conclusion from what you had said; not particularly emotional. If you have the time, you can go back through some of my earlier posts and you will see that I was actually against the US invasion precisely because, to quote Molly Ivans, it would be a ``very easy war and the peace from Hell.``

Here is your own post:
``So how bad really was Iraq, under Saddam Hussain? I know it got really bad, after the first Gulf war. But how bad was it before the Americans started messing around in the area. And before sanctions were imposed on Iraq?``

That is what I was responding to. Just because I am willing to choose the lesser of two evils (keeping Saddam in place to keep the lid on) doesn`t mean that I am willing to say that life under Saddam was great or to deny the fact that Saddam Hussein would rank up there with Pol Pot and Idi Amin among the ``great murderers of the second half of the 20th century.``

There is a fundamental difference between, say, Hussein`s decision to gas the Kurds or kill thousands of Shias, and the US decision to attack a target that kills civilians as ``collateral damage.`` At one level, it really doesn`t matter: dead is dead. At another level, it does matter. Who would you rather have ruling you? Someone who deliberately decides to kill hundreds of thousands of defenseless civilians in order to stay in power? Or someone who realizes that civilian casualties are an inevitable side effect of military action and tries (however diligently) to minimize these casualties?

OR are you seriously going to argue that Rumsfeld and Co deliberately say, ``Naah. Lets go with the option that kills more ragheads.`` I can easily believe that they will go with the option that gives lower US casualties (at the expense of more dead Iraqis, perhaps) but not that they will try to maximise civilian casualties. Are you now going to argue that Saddam and Co sat down and said, `` We need a massive show of force BUT figure out the minimum number of casualties needed to cow the Kurds.``

Of course there have been substantial civilian casualties BUT the US at least pays some attention to minimizing them. Some years back, one of the PBS shows had on it a retired Russian KGB major who had spent a few years in Afghanistan with the Spetsnaz and he was talking about military operations in Afghanistan. At the time the US was saying there had been about 500 civilian casualties. After discussing the military operations and what the terrain was like, he said that the 500 casualties claim was clearly wrong. He guessed it would be closer to 2-3 thousand casualties. He then said that if we (the Russians) had launched the same type of campaign, there would have been 20-30 thousand civilian casualties. Furthermore, the US was deliberately scrapping some missions that would have resulted in very high civilian casualties. The Russians would never have done that.

See, sometimes it does make a difference who is making the decisions.

Beena

When I wrote that Afghanistan and Iraq should not be mentioned in the same breath, I was, sub-consciously subscribing to a supposedly ethical framework that seemed to be operative internationally prior to the Bush-Blair Saddamphobia.

While that interact has been posted, I have been giving thought to what I said. But before I go into what dawned upon me, a few words about:

[but to me, the connection is that in both countries, US bombings have caused horrific civilian casualties and breakdowns in infrastructure. These in turn have only enraged more people, turned increasing numbers against `the West`, and enabled them to take advantage of the prevailing lawlessness - and it is the ordinary Iraqis, and people like Margaret Hassan who are paying the price]

The Margaret Hassans of this world, of our day and age are, perhaps [and very sadly so], destined to pay the price for the chicanery, ruthlessness and brigandage of the likes of George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush et al.

Now, about collateral damage. The destruction of infrastructure, the civilian casualties, the dislocation and tribulation caused to civilian populations who are absolutely innocent of any role in the creation of such conditions that lead to the military actions which cause such collateral damage.

Has there been any war in the history of mankind where collateral damage has not occurred? Just in the past hundred years, WW1, WW2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the civil war in the then Congo, the Suez and the two Egypt Israel Wars, the wars over Kashmir, the Falklands war, the Iran-Iraq war, the so-called Soviet occupation [they were invited in to help fight a metastasized insurgency by a sitting Afghan government] and the so-called Afghan jihad, The Gulf War 1, the Taliban take-over of Afghanistan, has any one of them been devoid of collateral damage?

Mind you, I’m not condoning wars. I abhor them. But where there will be war, there will be collateral damage. To avoid one, you’ll have to avoid the other, to obviate one you’ll have to obviate the other.

There could, perhaps, have been better ways to deal with the intransigence of the Taliban regime over the handing over of OBL. But now, we are abdicating the realm of history and entering the realm of prophecy . . .

Now, what exactly is that ephemera we call ``International Law?`` Is the charter of the UN and the various resolutions, treaties, protocols and agreements enacted under the charter any good?

Does the world community have any moral locus standi to enforce its consensual will upon any nation/state? If it does, would it be ethical for the world community to employ force to enforce such consensual will?

Is the world community in effect agreed upon on certain basic principles regarding the ordering and governance of society? If it is, how come, such patently non-representative, and popularly abhorred regimes such as that of Raza Shah Pehlavi in Iran, that of Zia ul Haq in Pakistan, of the Taliban in Afghanistan, of Saddam in Iraq were tolerated for so long?

Or is it that that the world community, collectively, is at least as hypocritical, devious and focused upon selfish interests as we all individually are in this 21st century.

As often, and always painfully so for me, its a question of answers.


Siddiqua Haqnawaa

dost-mittar #13: ``Romair, I agree with most of what you said except the last paragraph. As I have said before, I am now not in favour of the yankees leaving iraq at this time. As Powel, said the rule of army engagement is ``you break it, you fix it``. So, let the americans pay the price for fixing it.``

DM, Iraq is currently in the same situation as Afghanistan was, after the USSR invasion. Both invasions were carried out, according to the invading countries, to help the locals. This is the easiest way to justify an invasion. Doesn`t matter if the locals asked for the help or not. They need to be, ``helped.``

The USSR had far more staying power in Afghanistan, as a society, than the Americans do in Iraq. Primarily because it was geographically closer and because the USSR was a dictatorship, hence the Kremlin did not have to worry about opinion polls. But eventually it got kicked out, due to the resistance. The same thing is happening to the USA. But a lot quicker.

This has put Iraq in the Afghanistan situation. Damned if you do, damned if you don`t. If the Americans stay, Iraq is screwed, because there will be continued violence, and there is absolutely nothing the Americans can do to stop it. There main aim being to minimize their casualities. In addition, Americans will end up killing more and more Iraqis, thereby making the resistance stronger.

If the Americans leave, the post-USSR phase of Afghanistan could occur, i.e. infighting, with factions supported by neighboring countries, destroying Iraq.

When superpowers invade third-world countries, they do it for their own interests. If they realize their interests have become unachievable, they tend to leave and cut their losses. ``Fixing`` the invaded country is low on their list. USSR never, ``fixed`` Afghanistan. I think the only people who may be able to, ``fix`` Iraq are the Iraqis themselves. So handing it over to them quickly is a less dangerous option than the USA just staying there, forever. What will the USA accomplish in the future that it hasn`t been accomplish yet.

Iraq should never have been sanctioned in the 90s. Its society should have been allowed to evolve. And eventually the Iraqis would have gotten rid of Saddam themselves. No dictator can occupy a country forever. Sooner or later, all have fallen.

Now Iraq is a gigantic mess, where even human rights organizations cannot operate freely. And I am getting convinced, that Iraq was better off under Saddam`s rule (specifically in the pre Gulf War 1 days), regardless of how evil it may have been, than it is today under Bush.

It`s kind of like saying that the Pakistan police is corrupt. Which it is. But Pakistani society is still better off with a corrupt police force, than in a situation where the police force is completely removed and no one is there to replace it. The first option is controlled mayhem. The second option is complete mayhem.Iraq has gone from controlled mayhem, under Saddam, to complete mayhem, under Bush.

Regardless of how, ``evil`` and, ``corrupt`` Afghanistan`s pre-USSR invasion rulers and king(s) may have been, Afghanistan was still better of in 1970 than it is in 2004......

Fuzair #18: You have posted an emotional reply, without providing any facts.

I am only trying to deduce the lesser of two evils, i.e. Was Saddam`s rule less or more evil than the American rule? Are the people of Iraq less worse off under the USA or were they less worse off under Saddam?

I have used two references: the first is the migration trends of fellow Pakistanis. This is something I saw first hand. The second is the ability of human rights organizations to operate in Iraq. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing except emotional references to Hitler and Stalin. Are you seriously suggesting that Saddam`s rule was equivalent to Hitler`s? The American media seems to have really gotten to you. They can make anything look like something completely different.This is what happens when one is emotionally attached to one group in a conflict. You are convinced that USA is better for Iraq than anything else that was there before. Hence everything else is more evil.

What exactly was the picture of Iraq under Saddam? How many people was he killing? Maybe he was killing 1,000 people a year. Quite bad and evil. But still less evil than killing 15,000 in one year. Unless, of course, one believes the, ``collateral damage`` argument completely (Pakistan and India fought three wars, in which neither country had air superiority, yet the collateral damage in all three of these wars, was probably less than one thousand. Yet Americans with all their laser-guided weaponry and 100% air superiority have ended up killing close to 15,000 innocents)?

Maybe Shia clerics, like Al-Sadr`s father were killed by Saddam. But Al-Sadr, himself, doesn`t seem too fond of Americans, either. Does he? Have you ever wondered why? Aren`t Americans targeting Al-Sadr with the same or higher ferocity with which Saddam targeted his father? Maybe Al-Sadr hates Americans more than he hated Saddam? Who knows?

Isn`t it a bit odd that all the American reports about Saddam`s evilness seem to be backdated. Where were these reports when he was actually carrying out all these atrocities. Weren`t the Americans hand in hand with him. And what is the exact nature of these atrocities? I certainly don`t have any first-hand information. And to the best of my knowledge, neither do you.

Was Saddam equivalent to Hitler, in that he killed 6 million people. Or was he more equivalent to everyday Middle Eastern dictators like the Turkish govt. which has killed far more Kurds than Saddam ever did? Why the hell isn`t anyone complaining about Turkey? Was the average Iraqi safer walking down the street under the rule of Saddam or today?

One needs to keep things in perspective. I think Saddam was evil. But I think US rule in Iraq has been even more evil. A dead Iraqi is a dead Iraqi. Doesn`t matter if he was killed by Saddam`s bullet or an American missile. As I stated earlier, at least during Saddam`s rule, Pakistanis were lining up to migrate to his country, with complete desires of never returning home. Why aren`t they lining up to go there now, when Bush is running the show?

The ultimate criteria, in my book, of which rule or country is better, is based on migration patterns. Human beings always migrate from a worse place to live to a better place to live, with or without the Saddam`s of the world. And very few people from anywhere in the world are willing to migrate to Iraq now. While there was a long list willing to go there, under Saddam, pre Gulf War 1.

Saddam was evil, based on whatever I have seen. But the question is was he less or more evil for Iraq than Bush? And was he any more evil than some other Middle East dictators, whose countries are being allowed to evolve at their own pace?

Kindly provide some facts on why you feel Iraqis are better of today, under Bush, then they were pre Gulf War 1, under Saddam.

#19...
Please correct
``are again giving a rationalise`` to ``are again trying to rationalise``...

Americans messed up in Iraq, big time. But kindly note that what we now have there working against the Americans is not just ``iraqi -resistance``.

We do not know what Iraqis really want, but just a few days ago 48 Iraqi soldiers were killed in cold blood, shot at close range. There is no regard for Iraqi life in the suicide killings. No infrastructure can be rebuilt because that may `legitimize` Americans. The wishes and interests of the ordinary Iraqis do not matter, since nobody is interested in finding out what they are.

The algebra is simple. Americans went to Iraq because they didn`t like S. Husssain. Islamists have gone there because they don`t like America. Iraqi people are merely figleafs for both.

Beena #17
``merely pointing out that it is US aggression and heavy-handedness that has led to the breakdown of law & order, leading to this kidnapping spree.``

PLEASE!! You are again giving a rationalise why Margaret Hassan was kidnapped!! Why should US aggression result in kidnapping of Margaret? She was an Iraqi for 30 years!! If these kidnappers are so brave, why don`t they kidnap american troops only.... These kidnappers are looking for soft targets and are nothing but crooks..

These actions and reactions between US and terrorists are resulting in loss of life of innocent people. If these kidnappers are really sincere, they (or their sympathizers in USA) can get better results by opting for non-violent means...

This is typical of terrorist `freedom fighters` and their supporters - kill your own people and blame your enemy. This woman worked all her adult life for Iraqis, but her whole lifetime`s committment to Iraq amounted to a great big zero for her kidnappers. And other Iraqis are killed every day in bomb blasts and targetted killings by terrorists claiming to liberate Iraq. Some `liberation` when you claim your superior morality `forces` you to kill your own people in large numbers.

Romair,

How bad was life under Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot? Idi Amin? Duvalier? And a few more that could be named.

Certainly, a tall, blond, blue-eyed Aryan who was not a Communist/Socialist/Jew/Union organizer/homosexual/etc had life OK under Hitler. After all, the inflation rate was reduced, unemployment reduced, the autobahn built, etc, etc.

Of course life was great for the Sunni Iraqis from Tikrit. It really sucked if you were a Kurdish nationalist who thought that speaking/reading/writing Kurdish was prefereable to Arabic. What if you were a Shia cleric whose family was executed by Hussein? Or a girl who Hussein`s sons found attractive?

If you absolutely kept your nose clean and said, ``Saddam is always right. Long live Saddam!`` then the odds were that you would be OK. However, what if you didn`t want to yell that at the top of your lungs. What then?

Romair, sometimes you truly amaze me.

For those who appear to have taken my piece the wrong way - I am not at all trying to justify the plight of Margaret Hassan, merely pointing out that it is US aggression and heavy-handedness that has led to the breakdown of law & order, leading to this kidnapping spree. I don`t believe the kidnappers can escape responsibility for their actions, but those who have attacked Iraq on false pretexes must also shoulder their share of the blame.

Re: Afghanistan - in some ways certainly it is better off, and the situation there is different from Iraq. Perhaps I should not have mentioned them in the same breath, but to me, the connection is that in both countries, US bombings have caused horrific civilian casualties and breakdowns in infrastructure. These in turn have only enraged more people, turned increasing numbers against `the West`, and enabled them to take advantage of the prevailing lawlessness - and it is the ordinary Iraqis, and people like Margaret Hassan who are paying the price.

I stand corrected on Robin Cook - that sentence should have read: ``There is already fierce opposition to this in Britain, including by former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, then Cabinet Minister and Leader of the House of Commons, who resigned from the government in protest against Britain’s involvement in what he, along with millions of protestors around the world, saw as an unjustified invasion.``

It is an eye-opening reflection upon our times that the genuine plight of one person (Margaret Hassan) does not prompt an iota of sympathy from the self-appointed guardians of the world, whereas the perceived misdoings of one person (Saddam Hussein) prompted them to invade, occupy, enslave, emaciate and impoverish a whole country and nation.

Expecting George W. Bush and or John Kerry to be able to comprehend such niceties as human rights and such issues as human suffering, is asking too much . . .

On a tangent, I simply cannot fathom it when the US invasion of Afghanistan, and the War against Iraq are mentioned in the same breath.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Beena Sarwar

Robin Cook did not resign as foreign secretary. He had been sacked from that position many years previously.

I take your point about American high handedness causing ``terrorism`` (Note inverted commas)

Would you apply the same interpretaton on the slaughter and blasting of Shias in your country?

Please write an article putting the blame for anti-Shia ``terrorism`` in Pakistan at the door of Shia high handedness and arrogance please. They must be doing something wrong, right?

Lets look at the root cause of ``terrorism`` against Shias. Any ideas?

Iraq has become the battleground for the clash of fundamentalisms. The sufferers are the Iraqi people and some of those who would like to help them.

Romair, I agree with most of what you said except the last paragraph. As I have said before, I am now not in favour of the yankees leaving iraq at this time. As Powel, said the rule of army engagement is ``you break it, you fix it``. So, let the americans pay the price for fixing it.

Finally, I am glad nobody is suggesting the Margaret Hassan`s kidnapping is the work of cia/fbi to defame islamists.

There is something about this whole Iraq thing that doesn`t quite add up.

I visit my local sheesha place and have a discussion with its Christian Iraqi owner. He says things were ok in Iraq, under Saddam, as long as one didn`t get too involved in politics. Saw the interview of an Iraqi architect, and he said the same thing.

I remember when Pakistanis used to line up in queues to get work visas to Iraq. Anyone who got one, would never return. Obviously, it must have been a better place to live than Pakistan, circa pre-1990. Then during the first Gulf war, Pakistanis returned to Pindi, from Iraq, with their oversized cars, and with tears in their eyes. Quite unhappy in having to leave Iraq.

I also remember the time when Saddam was a good guy and an American ally that Rummy used to shake hands with. Americans gave him everything from chemical weapons material to the latest brand of Levis. He even had Frenchies as his personal surgeons.

So how bad really was Iraq, under Saddam Hussain? I know it got really bad, after the first Gulf war. But how bad was it before the Americans started messing around in the area. And before sanctions were imposed on Iraq?

Was it as bad as it is today? I knew a lot of Pakistanis ready to migrate to Iraq back then. While there are hardly any willing to go there now. And the Margaret Hassans of the world, worked comfortably during Saddam`s rule.

Maybe everything will work out for Iraq. The Americans got rid of Saddam. And the resistance will get rid of the Americans. And the maulvis will take over. It is going to be really interesting watching the US President welcoming an Ayotollah into office. Who would have thought a bearded Sistani in Iraq could ruin Bush`s elections by raising on hand and ordering 1 million Iraqis onto the street, anytime he wanted. And who would have thought a uniformed Musharraf could save Bush`s election by catching OBL.

The world works in strange ways...........

Beena,
You write in concluding paragraph of this article
``The rising anti-U.S. sentiment around the world is fuelled by US high-handedness; if allowed to continue unchecked, it will only lead to more ‘terrorism’ and make Westerners in general more unsafe. ``

Are you trying to somehow justify the plight of Margaret Hassan? Look at the face of this poor victim



What is provocation to Iraqi terrorists, freedom fighters or whosoever they are? how did this poor lady provoked them?

Do these ``freedom fighters`` realise that they are loosing any sympathy for their cause? It would be prudent for them to consider using one of the Gandhi`s tactic. Of asking one of their sympathasizer in USA to just do a fast unto death.. That single act will perhaps do more for Iraqi cause than killing of thousands Margaret Hassan...

LOL .... Yes Fighting they have..... Every where in every nook and corner of their countries....


Chance....??? ................. its still left to chance...??....... !!!!

M.B.Z.Isphahani #6

Where is the Indian army taking any ``fasting Muslim`s`` oil for free? Do you stand behind your statements? Or do you just use lies to arouse people`s emotions?

I am certain you have given more to India, America, and all non Muslims than Margaret Hasan ever gave to Iraq and Muslims. You have also suffered more everyday in India and America than what the good lady Margaret Hasan might be undergoing now. Given your cultural/religious background, the history of `your people,` I understand all that.

I want to know where the Indian army is taking ``Muslim oil`` for free?

What is more civilized about bombing and killing women and children from the skies or thru weapons of mass destruction which the western powers have and the iraqis and afghans did not... I JUST CANNOT BELIEVE WE HAVE PEOPLE AMONGST US WHO BELIEVE SO.

beena,

..... i know it is hard t think on an empty stomach, but after iftar do take off your foggy glasses, put aside your hurt third-world feelings, and take a good look at raeality .........

......... afghanistan just had its first elections ever and alawi is a much better man than any of the arab goons in his neighborhood ....... the people of afghanistan and iraq finally have a fighting chance (no pun intended) to join the civilized world .........

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

thanks beena:

I WILL REMEMBER

Dear M.B.Z.Isphahani #2

That was a classic. This is an article about a lady who has been abducted, hopefully to be released.

You have got 1 billiion Muslims in your post. You have got Americans. You threw in the Isralis, Indians. For some reason you left out Pakistanis :)

Oil is there. Insult is there. Chechnya is there. Oil is being taken free. :)

Holy Ramdan. Fasting Mulims. No care for the Muslims.

The abducted lady matters in that she is here but may be gone. Oil hungry world, taking `Muslim` oil `free` through `armies`

LOL...I am beginning to understand the masses, and why they do what they do.

Hats off to you, Sir. You have as much magic in your words as any priest or prophet ever did.

``Nato Warsaw Indian Army israeli and royal Japanese army seem to have
been hooked up for free oil supply of Iraq Baku chechnya.``


Mr. Isphahani

Where is the Indian Army ``hooked up for free oil supply of Iraq Baku chechnya?``

(And how would that be related to the abduction of a lady who has been serving that country for 30 years?)

Do you keep any kind of morals at all?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Osama Bin Laden declared war on the west. The west is not a decadent society, like Osama and his active and passive supporters think it is. When roused and threatened, the West can be ferocious. Ask the japanese.