Since the OP himself has repeatedly refused to discuss his nationality or location, and angrily rejects any requests to do so, “Where, why, when” the OP writes his diatribes is irrelevant, by his own statements in this thread.
The topic goes where it goes. My understanding of the premise, as repeated ad infinitum by the OP, is that the US, by showing specific videotaped acts involving the captured Saddam, was accidently or deliberately offending “certain groups”, so far undefined, of Arabs, or perhaps muslims; it is not clear which. The OP seems to demands that readers simply accept this statement as speaking for all Arabs, or all muslims, without question. I see no reason to do so, as the OP has not demonstrated any specific expertise that would lead us to believe he is authoritative on this subject.
The OP himself was the first to claim that the shaving of Saddam’s beard was an important aspect of that humiliation. Several people have posted rebuttals and questions relating directly to that specific issue; since the OP himself was the first to raise the issue, it is therefore perfectly on-topic.
There is no evidence that Saddam grew a beard for religious and/or cultural reasons, but merely as a disguise, while he has been on the lam since April. Removing it is no different than catching a bank robber and removing his mask. Those that are offended by this are just a wee bit oversensitive, in my opinion.
Charles Krauthammer, on dealing with deposed tyrants:
“Iraq has its own ways. In the revolution of 1958, Prime Minister Nuri as-Said was caught by a crowd and murdered, and his body was dragged behind a car through the streets of Baghdad until there was nothing left but half a leg.
We Americans don’t do it that way. Instead, we show Saddam - King of Kings, Lion of the Tigris, Saladin of the Arabs - compliantly opening his mouth like a child to the universal indignity of an oral (and head lice!) exam. Docility wrapped in banality. Brilliant. Nothing could have been better calculated to demystify the all-powerful tyrant.”
Jack, do you really think this article is appropriate to the discussion? It’s conservative blinkered cheerleading nonsense disguised as information. After reading this extraordinary paragraph you quoted I went and found the whole article to boggle at, and there was much boggling.
Krauthammer doesn’t seem to understand that instances of pan-Arabic nationalism are not evil movements and are not like fascism, they are a very loose collection of reactions and are best addressed as such rather than derided from a superior vantage point. For example, contrary to Cabbage-mallet’s quick and dirty assertions, Al Jazeera doesn’t “promote” Saddam Hussein, they tend to report on him from a more Arab slant than the majority of non-Arabs are used to – and of course al Jazeera staff are bound to have different opinions on the matter anyway. Saddam is seen by some as a “lion” of sorts not because he stood for something that is admirable and brave, but because he simply stood – where other nations and leaders of the region have given in, have been parcelled and bought and controlled by “colonial” (bad catch-all term that one) powers or those in the service of Israel, Saddam Hussein made a stand against overwhelming might not once but at least twice, not for a few weeks but for over a decade, acting defiant to the ultra-powerful. And he was shrewd enough to survive as long as he did against the kind of enemies he made.
Those are qualities that, regardless of the awful character and track record of the man, can stand to be admired in the disillusioned, disappointed and often disenfranchised Arab street (and elsewhere too, for that matter). But all Krauthammer can think to do is make fun of the fact that some Arabs (he makes it sound like the whole damn region) have unfortunately picked a poor de facto hero – other than that, his opinion article really adds nothing to the discussion. Cabbagemallet writes off the broadcast images of Saddam without even a mention that they might be inappropriate, he doesn’t for a minute stop to consider that the propagandistic attempt to show Saddam crushed might be objectionable in principle and in law, and he only has glowing things to say about his favourite team; as in many of his other columns, he has put forward cheap cheerleading with delusions of intellectuality and a conspicuous lack of real arguments, while at the same time reaffirming that his country is the greatest there is, etc. Just the sort of thing we need.
You could certainly find room to debate the points raised in Krauthammer’s column. Objecting to quoting him on the basis that his comments are unrelated to the OP is silly, unless you believe that the OP is really all about treating Saddam with respect.
Of course, the case can be made that Saddam had been “parcelled and bought and controlled” on the basis of past aid from the U.S. (and EU nations), in the U.S.'s case when he was seen as the lesser of two evils vis-a-vis Iran. His “defiance” came rather late in the game.
By admiring Saddam or viewing him as some sort of hero (and the selection of quotes I’ve seen from Arab newspaper editorials suggests this is not uncommon), his supporters are guilty of the same thing done by U.S. administrations - backing the perceived lesser of two evils (the greater evil in their case being the alleged “hegemonistic” aspirations of the U.S.).
What’s worse is that their support for Saddam has persisted despite revelations of the extent of his horrific crimes.
Knee-jerk pandering to grotesque tyrants is nothing new in the Middle East. Nazi Germany was viewed in a relatively kindly light by a number of Arabs during WWII (including receiving direct aid from some Palestinians) because the Germans were fighting the colonial power (Britain).
My statement is merely a reservation that I see this whole thread as an exercise of head banging against each other’s wall of non-convincing viewpoints and an OP that feels that the whole Arab world sees and believes what HE sees (from another country), even though we have seen and heard other Middle-Easterners (in media and life) express DIFFERENT viewpoints. Better that there is an escalation in propaganda rather than an escalation in arms. It just shows that not everyone is going to be happy/pleased no matter what current world event happens.
There are acquaintances (our sons play on the same hockey team) of mine who are of Middle-Eastern origin and are practicing Muslims, and they express the OPPOSITE viewpoint that Aldebaran is posting, and they are happy to see him caught, cleaned up and seen again to confirm it was actually him, albeit over and over and over…
Should I just believe what Aldebaran posts over the feelings of my ME friends because he “represents” the Arab world?
A: No.
…I find that this OP viewpoint is that of a grudge and nitpick and is becoming a waste of electricity and keystrokes…
You don’t find the US screaming about some POW’s showed on TV in shapr contrast with what they do themselves to “the others”? Hussein only being the last scandolous hypocritical example?
BTW… Of course I’m “from an other country” then USA or I wouldn’t be born where I’m born and live where I live.
What has this to do with “the validy of my points”?
Note to the “beard issue” repeaters: I explained it now already a few times and if you can’t read or can’t understand my posts, then it would be time-saving if you don’t go into them. Thank you.
Salaam. A
Oh, forgot… I don’t drive. But that has nothing to do with me being blind or incapable. I did leanr it and even have a drivers licence. Valid in my country and in Europe. Don’t know in the US though.
Salaam. A
As to your OP, it’s typically shril and been answered to death:
Yes it is slightly hypocritical of the US
A head of state is hardly a typical applicant for protection under the Geneva Convention
The humiliation is in the context of the captor not the prisoner
Saddam was hardly humiliated
Rarely has a head of state responsible for the progressive terrorization of 25 million people been captured and so visible evidence may be needed to assure his ex-victims that he is no longer a threat.
And your OP is hardly confusing, though I wait with bated breath for the next one.
I had already pointed out the hyprocracy in my first post, albeit a necessary hypocracy. Propaganda is alive and well in each war since the beginning of human conflict.
What I meant to say is that you are commenting from another country outside of the Middle East…My bad.:smack:
Nothing. When I talk to friends and acquaintances from the Middle East, I get differing opinions than yours. That has a lot to do with the validity of your viewpoints. It’s not like we live in a vacuum here in the US. There are many people and cultures from all over the world who leave their homeland for various reasons and are not afraid to state their viewpoints here in our country. Therefore, I/we learn about the people and their cultures.
I’m trying to imagine how humiliating it would be if our leader was shot and killed and dragged through the streets until a leg was the only thing left to drag. I think he would prefer the oral exam and the head lice check over the cap-to-the-head check followed up by “street check”. I am repeating myself here, but it’s for the OP’s benefit.
What different opinions?
If they don’t see the hypocrisy of the USA crying like spoiled teenagers about their soldiers on Iraqy TV, yet doing just the same to Iraqis and selling that as completely appropriate… Is that my fault? Does that make it less hypocritical or what?
And do you take people who leave their country for an other one as being the only representatives of those nations or what do I have to make of your comment?
Do you think GW Bush would prefer to be shown during a medical exam, half sedated and bewildred, in prime time on the world’s TV screens? Maybe you should contact him to ask his opinion, no?
By the way: would the US public find that absolutely normal, if done by say a victorious Sadam Hussein? They wouldn’t find it in violation of one and an other?
And what benefit do you think I might have by your statement… I’m really extremely interested. Thank you for explaining it in detail, claryfying drawing included.
Let’s take your points one by one… Sorry, I’m a bit tired, so let us do that without the repeated “quote”…
“1. Yes it is slightly hypocritical of the US”
So you mean that showing those POW’s on Iraq TV was also only slightly in violation with the Geneva conventions?
“2. A head of state is hardly a typical applicant for protection under the Geneva Convention”
Really? Can you explain that in detail?
You mean that for example GW.Bush as head of state has no protection under the Geneva convention ever, in no matter which situation he might find himself in?
Interesting.
“4. The humiliation is in the context of the captor not the prisoner”
Sorry?.. Drawing possible? Thank you.
“2. Saddam was hardly humiliated”
Did you ask him that or would you find it normal to be shown on prime TV world wide during an mediacal exam in a somwhat drugged-looking bewildered state?
“5. Rarely has a head of state responsible for the progressive terrorization of 25 million people been captured and so visible evidence may be needed to assure his ex-victims that he is no longer a threat.”
I answered similar on comments already with a sort of listing how that could be done without this whole purely propagandistic - and having in adition idiotic non-reaslised goals - US TV Show. You can go look at those posts of mine on this very topic.
“And your OP is hardly confusing, though I wait with bated breath for the next one.”
I’m honoured. It’s always a pleasure to be admired.
The need to convince the Iraqi people Saddam had been captured was paramount, and
The fact is that what plays well on US teevee matters a whole lot more than does reaction in the Arab and Muslim world.
I don’t particularly care what damn ‘status’ the dictator is, or should be. The west has a history of making these things up as it goes along, anyway. Including the ad hoc tribunals at Nuremberg.
So, I do think the Iraqi people needed to be convinced but whether they needed moving images of his humiliation isn’t clear because the US went right to those without first seeing the reaction to still photos. It seems doubtful.
I also feel that in the whole scheme of this war of aggression and the world as a whole, this humiliation is but a very small example of US hypocrisy.
It really is a drop in the ocean. Aldebaran - you defend yourself well. It’s good to have assertive Muslim opinion on the board.
But when one ignores substantive points, denies the existence of other opinions (i.e.“What different opinions?”) and substitutes invective for thoughtful commentary it hardly qualifies as “defending oneself well”.
There’s already a surfeit of immature outbursts on this topic. Having the OP render yet another adds nothing to the discussion.
**
Although you have chosen to not state the country that you are currently living in, then any idea that I have of where you live is indeed strange to you…how about this, “What country are you currently living in?” That would be helpful instead of playing “Where the Hell is Carmen San Diego”…
**They saw Saddam as a criminal being caught, not a leader being humiliated. They were more than joyful when they had seen the pictures and the confirmation. They did not see a problem with the treatment that he was recieveing, but some of them wish he was found or shot dead instead of being caught alive.
**
Hmmm, you should be able to answer that one for yourself…:rolleyes:
No I said the US was slightly hypocritical. Unless you’re holding out that they managed to violate every single aspect of the conventions and do so in the most heinous way possible.
No I mean that the Geneva Conventions deal with war, which unless I’ve missed something tends to be fought by faceless grunts, or slightly less faceless officers. If an administration makes up say 100 people (Bush et. al.) the army might possibly be larger (say 1 million). So a 1:10,000 ratio, or 1:1,000 if we just consider the forces in Iraq. Seems the convention would be in place to primarily protect soldiers as they would make up the majority of the combatants, unless we’re placing Presidents and PMs in the front lines.
I’ll opt not to pull your typical “Read my replies above”. I’ll restate that no one has provided a source to determine what is actions might be humiliating. Nuremberg fails as litmus as it was primarily between western powers. Japan however was held to have humiliated POWs. Victor’s justice aside, it seems that precedent makes a western context the basis for determining what acts are humiliating when western armies are involved. This slightly changes my point from Captor/Prisoner to Western/Prisoner. In short if it ain’t humiliating to the majority of westerners it ain’t humiliating regardless of Arab sensibilities.
See above, and I’ve never held that Saddam looked particularly with it to begin with.
The fact that an unusual news event, which was not handled in your prescribed manner, offends you seems the height of self absorption.
Supremely uneven postings filled with questionable intents are always something to behold.
Sorry, but I don’t give my location and I said that already several times.
And when your comment
holds an insinuation that I left my country to immigrate to an other one…
Sorry to disappoint you, but I didn’t, and my late father didn’t and I have no intention let be any need to do so in the future.
My late mother did though. She left Belgium to marry my father in his country, where I was born an where my main residence is and where my women and children were born and live, as their and my family (from father’s side) does.
Now that your curiosity is satisfied, I think we can stay on topic, no?
Your comment that a large part of the Iraqi population “saw Sadam as a criminal being caught, not a leader being humilated” -which is true, yet even their joy does not wipe out the points I mentioned that are working against this show- has nothing to do with my comment you previously quoted.
It has also nothing to do with the issue of this topic. That goes about commenting on the double-standard-hypocrisy of the USA.
And about the double goal they tried to reach by showing these pictures, which had less to do with “reassurance” of th Iraqis who suffered under Hussein, then with
Propaganda on the home front and among those who can’t see through it and can’t see the hypocrisy of it
(To summarize it) “Teaching those stupid Arabs who run after oppressive dictators, or accept being ruled by them, a lesson”. Which was only showing their absolute ignorance of the mentality and culture of those “Arabs”.
By this needs to be mentioned that one of the most exploiting oppressing regimes in that region is “The Friend” of the USA and can do whatever it wants as long as the oil keeps flowing.
So once again they show their double standards and in addition they show once again their lack of insight in what really their own interests are. Because if you would have a revolution against the regimes spreading across the MENA region, the first who will profit from that right now are the fundamentalists and separatisctic groups. It would have as result civil war and chaos spreading rapidly everywhere.
It is a bit pitty to say, but most countries there need at this moment still a strong (and sometimes indisputable) leadership merely to be able to avoid such evolution. (That something is going to happen is however even clear for the blind.)
I think - and many with me - that the USA is in urgent need for a government with a background of reality-education and realistic working brains instead of the unrealistic blindly speculating Might shall give us Victory and Right, that we see in action now.
