if we are animals, so were they

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Recent threads in this forum seem to be triggered by a defensive instinct in a group of posters who defend/rationalise atrocities committed in American-occupied Iraq. Threads aiming to show muslim atrocities on Muslims.

These threads would be welcome and informatory if they were not specifically aiming at distracting attention and condemnation from what deserves to be condemned in Iraq.

You should realise that anything Hitler or Stalin or Saddam or Assad did does not give you license to do the same.

You reduce yourselves to their level in doing so.

2

HaaN!

3

^meaning "yeah right!"

4

America is fighting terrorists and trying to help Iraq get out of the rock it’s been under since Saddam. To compare it to operations that Hitler and Stalin did, is sadly laughable.

5

question is, why do people find themselves compelled to bring those up when attempting to defend iraq under america?

im not the one doing the (implicit) comparison.

6

Ask those who call the Americans Nazis and what not, I'm merely reminding them what Nazis are.

7

taking your argument further, those who's atrocities you cite, are truly Nazis, as opposed to you, who are Nazi-lite if anything.

the point remains, you're only (implicitly) justifying the murder you commit by pointing at a bigger mass-murderer.

8

ravage,

"You should realise that anything Hitler or Stalin or Saddam or Assad did does not give you license to do the same. "

As this is aimed at me, I shall respond. No one is suggesting that the death of one person is any more tragic today under current times than under some historic despot. You misunderstood the point.

The point is that the propaganda of "genocide, and massacre, and atrocity" are not even close in proportion to what history teaches us. No one is claiming license to anything.

Frankly when the US says that they are avoiding civilian casualties to whtever extent that they can, it is helpful to see what the other extreme might be.... The Japanese murdered MILLIONs in a barbaric campaign all across Asia. Yet no one here seems to have the slightest idea of the magnitude or the entrenched evil in that regime. ALL they remember is Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Fine, play keyboard critic. But what is lacking is a sense of magnitude and historic perspective.

Assad leveled a city and killed 25,000 civilians in 27 days(muslims). Saddam killed upwards of 100,000 Kurds in one year in the Anfal campaigns (muslims). Who do you think did it? Probably his most loyal troops, sitting in Fallujah!

When people compare Iraq today to Vietnam, they have no idea that in the city of Hue alone, the US was facing a well equiped, battlehardend force of North Vietnamese regulars numbering 80,000. Now THAT was an insurgency.

Perhaps it is the Media who gives us such immediacy, but no one can comprehend today the battlefields of the first World War where a million men died in a month. The numbers I am discussing are so unfathomable to todays kids that they glaze over. They hear that a hundred US lives were lost in Iraq in April, and they forget that that was a bad DAY in Vietnam.

I did not care a lick about WMD. But I do belive that from time to time dictators reach such levels that they must be removed. It is not pretty. It is not for the faint of heart. The people of Iraq would have never gotten out of the clutches of Saddam. They tried in '91, and were slapped down. We should have defended them then. We did not.

Look around, do you see a fair election anywhere in the Middle East? Israel, perhaps Turkey if you want to stretch the region a bit. these are Muslim rulers in Muslim lands, and they have done you no favors. You would like to blame the US for "supporting" these rulers. What a grand cop out. We can hardly control a country with 130,000 troops in it! How do we "control" Saudi, or Egypt, or Yemen or the Sudan? We don't. Tribalism, graft and corruption keep unworthy ruler in power. Blaming Israel, which is a tiny speck of sand when you think about it, is almost laughable!

If you want freedom, there will be blood. Make your choice, but think before you answer.

No one ever thought that we would be friends with the Germans and Japanese or the Russians, never mind trade partners with the Chinese. Things change. 10 or 20 years from now things could end up being very different if the effort is expended in the next two years.....

9

The point is to remind those what a massacre is and what America is doing is no such thing. The fact that 10,000 Iraqis have died in this war does not mean Americans are Nazis, what it does show is that even taking the utmost precautions to avoid civilian casualties that you will still have them and that war is a ****ty thing. I understand there is resentment towards America and some of its justified but often it is not and anything that can be used to make America look bad will be even if it isn’t true and those who have a deep hate for America will spin it to make it look so.

10

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
America is ... trying to help Iraq get out of the rock it’s been under since Saddam.
[/QUOTE]

If you had said 'America attacked Iraq because it just felt like doing it', that would make much more sense....but please lets not call it an exercise in liberation. If saddams dictatorship was the problem, then we know there are tons of dictators that America is cozy and friendly with. I dont need to list names. If WMDs were the problem, again, we know there were none, and that wasnt the problem either.

So next time, while referring to the US attack on Iraq, just say, America did it because it is strong, and it can. That would be much easier to digest, not to mention, the correct explanation.

11

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *

As this is aimed at me, I shall respond. No one is suggesting that the death of one person is any more tragic today under current times than under some historic despot. You misunderstood the point.

[/quote]

you, and two(?) others. furthermore you added 'more' to my understanding of your point.

[quote]

The point is that the propaganda of "genocide, and massacre, and atrocity" are not even close in proportion to what history teaches us. No one is claiming license to anything.

Frankly when the US says that they are avoiding civilian casualties to whtever extent that they can, it is helpful to see what the other extreme might be.... The Japanese murdered MILLIONs in a barbaric campaign all across Asia. Yet no one here seems to have the slightest idea of the magnitude or the entrenched evil in that regime. ALL they remember is Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Fine, play keyboard critic. But what is lacking is a sense of magnitude and historic perspective.

[/quote]

How is this any different from what I was saying? You justify the blood on your hands with the blood on those of the Japanese, the Baathists, the Saddams.

I fail to understand why you would reply to my post and give me another instance of this trivialisation of murder by diversion tactics.

Consider as if you're making your case in a court of law. Does it pass muster for one accused of murder to cite another murderer who in his opinion killed more and got away with it?

[quote]

Assad leveled a city and killed 25,000 civilians in 27 days(muslims). Saddam killed upwards of 100,000 Kurds in one year in the Anfal campaigns (muslims). Who do you think did it? Probably his most loyal troops, sitting in Fallujah!

[/quote]

make your last argument, if anything. That i respect. Sadly, you're not even doing that. Nor is anyone else, as far as I can see, its merely you did this too, look at that, dont question us.

[quote]

When people compare Iraq today to Vietnam, they have no idea that in the city of Hue alone, the US was facing a well equiped, battlehardend force of North Vietnamese regulars numbering 80,000. Now THAT was an insurgency.

Perhaps it is the Media who gives us such immediacy, but no one can comprehend today the battlefields of the first World War where a million men died in a month. The numbers I am discussing are so unfathomable to todays kids that they glaze over. They hear that a hundred US lives were lost in Iraq in April, and they forget that that was a bad DAY in Vietnam.

I did not care a lick about WMD. But I do belive that from time to time dictators reach such levels that they must be removed. It is not pretty. It is not for the faint of heart. The people of Iraq would have never gotten out of the clutches of Saddam. They tried in '91, and were slapped down. We should have defended them then. We did not.

Look around, do you see a fair election anywhere in the Middle East? Israel, perhaps Turkey if you want to stretch the region a bit. these are Muslim rulers in Muslim lands, and they have done you no favors. You would like to blame the US for "supporting" these rulers. What a grand cop out. We can hardly control a country with 130,000 troops in it! How do we "control" Saudi, or Egypt, or Yemen or the Sudan? We don't. Tribalism, graft and corruption keep unworthy ruler in power. Blaming Israel, which is a tiny speck of sand when you think about it, is almost laughable!

If you want freedom, there will be blood. Make your choice, but think before you answer.

No one ever thought that we would be friends with the Germans and Japanese or the Russians, never mind trade partners with the Chinese. Things change. 10 or 20 years from now things could end up being very different if the effort is expended in the next two years.....
[/QUOTE]

irrelevant, but Im guessing you're making some good points. yes history has been brutal, and a lot of it happened because the media didnt have the immediacy it does now. fact that it does now is a good thing right?

Who knows, perhaps thats what holds countries back now, now that they know that immediately they will the target of public condemnation, and that they cant get away with it.

Nevertheless, citing those murders, does not, mitigate anything.

12

A strong, secure, free Iraq is what America is interested in, it suits Americas needs, both sides win.

13

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by underthedome: *
A strong, secure, **free* Iraq is what America is interested in, it suits Americas needs, both sides win.
[/QUOTE]

irrelevant.

i did not open this thread for the usual soundbites utd.

14

Well let me capsulize this for you.

If you accept the premise that there is a better day coming for the Iraqis, that Saddam would never be gone absent outside intervention, and that a period of turmoil is predictable when going from totalitarian rule to democracy, then:

Compared to historic standards, the death and destruction that you cite is quite cheap. That compared to other conflicts the human cost is small. That the US is willing to not only give it's money for this, but also to sacrifice its people to achieve a better life for Iraqis.

Undoubtedly you do not accept the premise either because you believe that a better life will not be achieved, or the Iraqi people would have thrown free the shackles of Saddam without intervention, or that the Iraqis are paying to high a price for very little hope.

Undoubtedly you will say, what gives the US the right to interfere and foist our version of freedom on people? Fair enough. Had Saddam not been an aggressive tyrant, perhaps no one would have cared. Given his history of aggressive and unpredictable behavior, the benefit exceeded the cost. After the first phase of fighting did it look like it would be easier? Yes.

I am not "justifying" anything, simply imploring the chicken-littles to look at the lessons of history before screaming around the room with hair on fire....

15

Well said ohioguy, some people just don't know the difference between regular warfare and massacres. This is war, people will die, sometimes the innocent will be among these people. But American forces have shown more willingness to not use overwhleming force when civllians are in the area. That is why they are using snipers rather then tanks in fallujah. They can pick the target exactly, and minimize civillians casaulties.

Now, we have to comapre this with the iraqi terrorists actions. They are deliberatly targeting civillians in suicide bomb attacks.

16

On the contrary they are supporting terrorists. BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq Baathists to get jobs back

The desperation of Americans is clearly showing up, now they are shaking hands with the Baath party. The same party which they called terroists, rapists. One member of Iraqi Governing Council said “This is like allowing Nazis into the German government immediately after World War Two”

I hope this is not Sadam Part Two

17

Ravage:
Sadly, you are missing the point of some recent posts you refer to. I second OhioGuy's thoughts and would like to add a few of my own.

There is a proclivity of many/some on Gupshup to take every death of a Muslim that can by any stretch of the imagination be deemed inspired by Americans or Jews and make it a war crime, an atrocity, a genocide, and evidence of a generalized hatred and bigotry directed at Muslims. Regarding the Palestinians, a revisionist history has been born that the plight of the Palestinian lays ** solely ** at the doorstep of the US and Israel. There is an overwhelming need to politicize in an anti-American context every death and to actually applaud, overlook, excuse, forget, and cheer death and murder so long as the deaths and murders can be twisted by small minds into a defeat of American interests or were perpetrated by Muslims.

Frankly, if Muslims can kill Muslims and it is not evidence of a generalized hatred and bigotry directed at Muslims, so too can non-Muslims kill Muslims without it being part of a generalized hatred and bigotry directed at Muslims. If Muslims can slaughter Palestinians at Sabra and Shatila without it being evidence that Muslims are just like the Nazis and are practicing genocide, then so too can Jews slaughter them without Jews being equated with Nazis and performing genocide.

The posts regarding Muslim on Muslim violence do not in tone or content attempt to excuse or justify any conduct by Israelis or Americans. My own recent post on the Shiite slaughter of Palestinians at Sabra and Shatila expressly references my horror at the 1982 massacre for which Sharon and Israel must accept responsibility. Just don't take a holier than thou attitude and argue that Sharon and the Jews are genocidal nazi war criminals for what happened in 1982 when you are willing to forget, forgive, ignore, or excuse the Shia slaughter 3 years later. I have noticed that some have stated that the deaths in Fallujah are the biggest example of genocide of Muslims since Sabra and Shatila. Really? Isn't it fair to ask: Which massacre at Sabra and Shatila are you talking about? The one perpetrated by the Muslim Amal militia in 1985 or the one in 1982? Whatever is happening in Fallujah, it most definitely is not a genocide. It may or may not prove to be a massacre.

Many of the recent posts in Gupshup by the usual American bashing suspects are like the Elephant Man pointing at someone saying "Gee. You sure are ugly." Hey fella, look in the mirror.

18

Good post ravage.

Pretty sick how the americans are justifying their latest massacres isn't it.

19

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Well let me capsulize this for you.

If you accept the premise that there is a better day coming for the Iraqis, that Saddam would never be gone absent outside intervention, and that a period of turmoil is predictable when going from totalitarian rule to democracy, then:

Compared to historic standards, the death and destruction that you cite is quite cheap. That compared to other conflicts the human cost is small. That the US is willing to not only give it's money for this, but also to sacrifice its people to achieve a better life for Iraqis.

Undoubtedly you do not accept the premise either because you believe that a better life will not be achieved, or the Iraqi people would have thrown free the shackles of Saddam without intervention, or that the Iraqis are paying to high a price for very little hope.

Undoubtedly you will say, what gives the US the right to interfere and foist our version of freedom on people? Fair enough. Had Saddam not been an aggressive tyrant, perhaps no one would have cared. Given his history of aggressive and unpredictable behavior, the benefit exceeded the cost. After the first phase of fighting did it look like it would be easier? Yes.

I am not "justifying" anything, simply imploring the chicken-littles to look at the lessons of history before screaming around the room with hair on fire....
[/QUOTE]

You take the oppurtunity to give one answer, and present your whole POV. I merely asked why people felt it necessary to bring up other massacres when faced with their own country's responsibilities.

You've answered everything but that. You offer reasons for the invasion, proffer hope that things will be better, etc etc etc, but bottom line: Im questioning your action, not that of your country's in this thread.

I love the way you ask yourself convenient questions in my voice, but I never asked that, least not in this thread.

Kindly read what Im asking before you proceed to debate (mostly) with yourself.

20

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Ravage:
Sadly, you are missing the point of some recent posts you refer to. I second OhioGuy's thoughts and would like to add a few of my own.

There is a proclivity of many/some on Gupshup to take every death of a Muslim that can by any stretch of the imagination be deemed inspired by Americans or Jews and make it a war crime, an atrocity, a genocide, and evidence of a generalized hatred and bigotry directed at Muslims. Regarding the Palestinians, a revisionist history has been born that the plight of the Palestinian lays ** solely ** at the doorstep of the US and Israel. There is an overwhelming need to politicize in an anti-American context every death and to actually applaud, overlook, excuse, forget, and cheer death and murder so long as the deaths and murders can be twisted by small minds into a defeat of American interests or were perpetrated by Muslims.

Frankly, if Muslims can kill Muslims and it is not evidence of a generalized hatred and bigotry directed at Muslims, so too can non-Muslims kill Muslims without it being part of a generalized hatred and bigotry directed at Muslims. If Muslims can slaughter Palestinians at Sabra and Shatila without it being evidence that Muslims are just like the Nazis and are practicing genocide, then so too can Jews slaughter them without Jews being equated with Nazis and performing genocide.

The posts regarding Muslim on Muslim violence do not in tone or content attempt to excuse or justify any conduct by Israelis or Americans. My own recent post on the Shiite slaughter of Palestinians at Sabra and Shatila expressly references my horror at the 1982 massacre for which Sharon and Israel must accept responsibility. Just don't take a holier than thou attitude and argue that Sharon and the Jews are genocidal nazi war criminals for what happened in 1982 when you are willing to forget, forgive, ignore, or excuse the Shia slaughter 3 years later. I have noticed that some have stated that the deaths in Fallujah are the biggest example of genocide of Muslims since Sabra and Shatila. Really? Isn't it fair to ask: Which massacre at Sabra and Shatila are you talking about? The one perpetrated by the Muslim Amal militia in 1985 or the one in 1982? Whatever is happening in Fallujah, it most definitely is not a genocide. It may or may not prove to be a massacre.

Many of the recent posts in Gupshup by the usual American bashing suspects are like the Elephant Man pointing at someone saying "Gee. You sure are ugly." Hey fella, look in the mirror.
[/QUOTE]

this seems like a better answer.. atleast from a birds eye view.

will reply in a bit.