It’s still not a sign of support for the US.
That’s no reason to go around calling people names in GD. What you’ve stated above would’ve been sufficient.
Well, your issues w/ the post.
Also:
I’m not sure it’s so much a sign of “progress” so much as just part of the overall lawlessness that’s going on Iraq right now. Sure, some of it is good. People can carry signs and scrawl graffiti, but the rates of murder and rape have also gone up since the ability for local law enforcement to investigate and prosecute such crimes is severely limited.
I think that the acceptance of the idea of a march is great. Just accepting the idea that a march is a way of expressing your political views is good by me. I also think that it’s great that they decided to bring out their voices against the violence.
No matter what I hold against those who put us in this position, I hold nothing against things getting better in Iraq. The march is pleasing to me in ways that nothing else from over there is.
I wish that they’d spawn a Ghandi.
The CPA doesn’t really need external help to screw up. Give the bombs a rest people.
Wow, I guess the liberal bias has finally overtaken foxneews.com. They also don’t seem to have any report on these protests.
foxnews.com, dammit.
Besides being glib, was there a point or intellectual submission here?
Or here?
It’s okay Sam. See how defensive they get when they are threatened?
Of course not. In fact, the potential implications may be considered troubling. Still, they must be allowed to do what they want inside their country (they meaning people, not dictators). Come to think of it, isn’t the absence of “garlanded Bush portraits” a good thing?
Yeah, I guess I must agree with you True Believers, those marching bands of protesters in Baghdad were just ticks on a turtle when compared with the hoards of demostrators that once overfilled the Baghdad streets back during the years of Saddam Hussein’s reign.
Yeah, back then we had some real hell raising demonstrations; remember the one where the iraqis marched for days in protest when Saddam cruelly gassed thousands and thousands of Kurds?
And how about that time when the iraqis almost bore ol’ Baghdad to the ground when Saddam had a few thousands of his own people shot and then buried them by bulldozer in a hundred, shallow, sandy, unmarked, mass graves .
Yeah, them were the good ol’ days, back when demonstrations were well attended, and street protesters were never lacking a pretty good cause.
You all do remember the protests don’t you?
Yeah, and I wonder too what ever happened to old December.
Happy Hanukah.
I don’t think anyone here has said they shouldn’t be allowed to do what they want. What is being disputed is the OP’s contention that this representaed any kind of major popular support for the US or (more importantly) that the American “liberal” media were suppressing the story.
I dare say not everyone in the march was pro-U.S.:
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/11.jpg
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/57.jpg
'Course, a mixed crowd like that is a good sign in its own way.
Indeed. Sorry it eluded you. I was making fun of the contention that the demonstration was some massive turnout to express support for the US and its policies. You did look at the pictures, right? So you saw the pictures the people carried. Now, carrying images is a very common feature of demonstrations like this. Looks like about the only images being toted about were those of Muslim clerics, a group not noted for its sympathy for American military interventions.
As far as a point and/or intellectual submission, about all you’ve said is that you don’t much like Diogenes either. Have you anything to say as to the matter at hand?
I think it’s a good thing. Hope it spreads. I said in an earlier thread that it would be helpful if Mullahs from different sects came together and had a hug-fest. It would be even better if a Mullah would emerge espousing the true meaning of Islam (peace). Warring factions breed a feudal mentality that excludes the world around them.
Who gives a shit if they’re pro-US or not?
I’m just glad they’re pro-Iraqi.
That means a hell of a lot more to me as an American. And I’m doubly glad they took to the streets to claim their nation from the thugs, murderers, and idiots currently sabotaging them.
Let them feel pride in themselves - that’s going to do a lot more to help America’s effort in Iraq than empty pro-American propaganda phrases on cardboard cutouts.
It is great news that there were different groups demonstrating and nobody was killed. Most mullahs, especially the critical Shia, seem to be adopting a wait-and-see approach to democracy. Maybe some form of representative democracy is possible without a civil war erupting. Maybe there is an exit strategy leaving a free Iraq. Of course, Shia patience to any occupation is limited.
As for the crowds being small, only if you look at one or two pictures. It obviously was ebbing flowing along the street. Any participatory democracy without violence is a good sign. We should not downplay the significance, or bury it in another story about bad news (NYT).
Wow. So my OP was ‘flawed in many ways’, and therefore could be totally dismissed huh? I was ‘dead wrong’, and therefore nothing to see here, huh? And of course, the actual topic of the OP goes unaddressed as usual.
Let’s start from the top, and see how ‘flawed’ my OP was.
Al Jazeerah apparently said this. I posted many links to pictures which certainly indicate that this is in the ballpark.
From another Iraqi Blog:
That’s a pretty wide spectrum, as I said in the OP.
Some here have questioned whether this was just a march ‘against violence’, or in support of the reconstruction. From the same Iraqi site, here is the translation of some of the banners:
-No to terrorism, no to Saddam, yes to peace.
-No to the Ba’athists, no to the terrorists, yes to democracy.
-dictatorship will never return.
-Bribee Arab channels; shame on you to show terrorism as resistance.
-Sunni and shia are united to build Iraq.
-Stop using religion and nationalism to justify terrorism.
-Islam is against violence and terrorism.
-Al-Jazeera+al-Arabiya = terrorism.
-Thank you IP.
Certainly no heavy Islamist overtones there. And by the way, carrying pictures of some of the Ayatollahs is not a bad thing - many of them are on the side of the CPA. And in fact, Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani comes from a sect of Islam that opposes the involvement of religion in government.
Still, are they marching in support of the U.S. effort? Many were. Just read the blogs I linked to, which are operated by Iraqis, and follow some of the links.
From the AFP story linked yesterday:
Now clearly, with a rally this large, and represented by so many groups, there are bound to be differing opinions. In fact, several hundred followers of al-Sadr were there to protest the U.S. I doubt if the Iraqi communist party had much good to say about the U.S. either. But they all opposed the ex-Ba’athists trying to kick the U.S. out.
That’s the question. I did NOT say that this is a vast liberal conspiracy, and the people who set up that particular straw man can bite me.
It doesn’t matter if you think that I believe that, or if you read an insinuation into my message. If you think assuming what I believe and then attacking the assumed belief while ignoring the actual question is a valid debating strategy, then the next time any of you ask an honest question about Bush like, “Why is he staying away from that conference” I must assume that it would be acceptable for me to say, “You just think he’s staying away because you think he’s evil! And that makes you an idiot. So nyah. I’m not answering the question.”
Forget what I think. The debate is supposed to be about what YOU think. I’ll ask the question again: WHY wasn’t this covered by the U.S. media? Yes, I know you can find a couple of sentences buried in a New York Times article, and some other newspaper published a short article on an inside page. But really, this hasn’t been covered. Not like the anti-U.S. protests were. If you don’t believe me, go to Google and search for “Baghdad protests”. You’ll find tons of articles about the anti-US protests last April and May. I’m sure you remember them - they were all over the news. CNN had full coverage. All the major outlets carried stories. The media also breathlessly carried full coverage of the pro-Saddam rallies in Baghdad before the war, even though anyone with half a brain knew they were staged.
So… Anyone like to tackle this? Surely, since you think I’m an idiot for thinking the media might be biased you might have some other reasons for thinking this wasn’t covered. Perhaps the word never got out to reporters in time for them to get there?
There must be a good reason, because it’s been a pretty slow news week and this seems awfully important to me to be ignored. So… theories?
And just for sport, this not being the pit and all, could we make an effort to leave the snotty tones out of the responses?
It WAS covered by the US media. It just wasn’t especially significant that few hundred people showed up to protest violence.
A play in two acts, by Shodan.
Part 1: Damn you for saying that this thread was about accusing the mainstream media of bias.
Part 2: It’s obvious that the media is biased.
—Bows, applause—
Now, granted, given that nothing showed up today, and thus it’s likely that little else will, I think the mainstream media is missing an important story, and there is clearly something to be explained here. I don’t however, know what the is explaination is. Perhaps if you, the OP, cared to elaborate on your dangling rhetorical questions and vague insinuations further we might have an actual topic to debate?
Won’t quite wash, Sam. You, yourself, posed the matter in terms that made the question of “liberal bias” more or less unavoidable when you offer an answer: perhaps it was the nature of the demonstration that was distasteful.
What other conclusion are we to draw? For myself, I come out more or less on the side that says nobody thought it was very significant.
Now you seem to wish us to believe that you had no such opinion, were merely opening up the issue for discussion and debate: why was this tremendously significant outpouring of admiration and devotion for Iraq’s liberators ignored by the …media.
Perhaps because it was no such thing?
What do you want, the friggin Hallelujah Chorus singing it from the rooftops? 561 hits on a small demonstration is pretty good coverage.
By way of comparison, consider the story about dissatisfied recruit’s mass exodus from the new Iraqi army.. It first appeared at about the same time as the pro-US rally story, yet a broad google search for it only turns up 253 hits tonight.
Perhaps someone would care to discuss which event will have the larger effect on the road to liberty in Iraq?