Salman Rushdie, Courageous Again...

Can’t believe that this was not posted, but I can’t remember seeing it on gupshup. As always Rushdie takes an unpopular but courageous stand.

A Liberal Argument For Regime Change

By Salman Rushdie
Friday, November 1, 2002; Page A35

Just in case it had slipped your memory – and as the antiwar protests grow in size and volume, it easily might have – there is a strong, even unanswerable case for a “regime change” in Iraq. What’s more, it’s a case that ought to appeal not just to militaristic Bushie-Blairite hawks but also to lily-livered bleeding-heart liberals; a case, moreover, that ought to unite Western public opinion and all those who care about the brutal oppression of an entire Muslim nation.

In this strange, unattractive historical moment, the extremely strong anti-Saddam Hussein argument isn’t getting a fraction of the attention it deserves.

This is, of course, the argument based on his 31/2-decade-long assault on the Iraqi people. He has impoverished them, murdered them, gassed and tortured them, sent them off to die by the tens of thousands in futile wars, repressed them, gagged them, bludgeoned them and then murdered them some more.

Saddam Hussein and his ruthless gang of cronies from his home village of Tikrit are homicidal criminals, and their Iraq is a living hell. This obvious truth is no less true because we have been turning a blind eye to it – and “we” includes, until recently, the government of the United States, an early and committed supporter of the “secular” Hussein against the “fanatical” Islamic religionists of the region. Nor is it less true because it suits the politics of the Muslim world to inveigh against the global bully it believes the United States to be, while it tolerates the all-too-real monsters in its own ranks. Nor is it less true because it’s getting buried beneath the loudly made but poorly argued U.S. position, which is that Hussein is a big threat, not so much to his own people but to us.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A49220-2002Oct31&notFound=true

good that its courageous and not disrespectful or insensitive.

He is a crowd favorite eh?

Good that it's courageous and hopefully eyeopening and introspective.

He is not saying anything different here that has not been said by someone else. Or is it newsworthy because Rushdie is saying it?

I would take Fareed zakaria's words over Rushdie's anyday.

His assessment, as much as I think it makes sense, is not ground breaking or some new angle to things. he has just regurgitated what has been said already.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
He is not saying anything different here that has not been said by someone else. Or is it newsworthy because Rushdie is saying it?

I would take Fareed zakaria's words over Rushdie's anyday.

His assessment, as much as I think it makes sense, is not ground breaking or some new angle to things. he has just regurgitated what has been said already.
[/QUOTE]

Comparing Fareed Zakharia to Salman Rushdie is like comparing Rouseau to Whitman.

Completely different talents and medium. He may have regurgitated....a lot of people here do that...but not as well.

The good thng is that both have spoken the truth about the situation. And they are both Indian :)

Another dissident voice:

The Iraqi dictatorship: a unique case needs an exceptional solution
Yasser Alaskary
25 - 9 - 2002

A young Iraqi dissident argues that the incomparable nature of his people’s burden makes the forced removal of Saddam Hussein the only ethical solution. ‘Regime change’ from outside, wrong in principle, is in this case justified and necessary.

In the passionate debate over whether to wage war on Iraq, the position of those opposed to military action has come to rest on the grounds that such action is not morally justifiable and would result in the deaths of many innocent Iraqis. Yet a crucial element of this argument is often neglected, namely what is the opinion and attitude of the Iraqi people themselves to the prospect of war?
Iraq is a unique issue, unlike any other in the world in almost every proportion. Yes, it has a dictator, and an oppressed people, as in many other countries. However, what is fundamentally different is the way this dictator oppresses his people. The suffering of the Iraqi people is profound and extraordinary in scale. What makes it even more painful is its concealment by the Iraqi government and the ignorance about it of the rest of the world.

It is impossible for anyone who has not lived in Iraq to comprehend the continuous psychological oppression of the people by the regime. Saddam Hussein has such a complex intelligence apparatus that people are afraid of expressing any opinion, anywhere, to anyone that may be deemed negative of the government. Families are afraid of each other; friends do not dare to test the genuineness of their friendship; people are even cautious of their eyes in case a certain way of looking at a picture of Saddam or a government building is deemed ‘disapproving’.

These are not mere words – this is the daily, lived experience of millions of Iraqi people. The result is that every Iraqi is trapped and isolated in an individual cocoon, on constant alert from what their eyes may do or their tongue may let slip. The consequence of any such ‘mistake’ or ‘slip’ has almost always been the execution of the ‘guilty’ and some or all of their immediate family, preceded by unimaginable torture and interrogation. And in case the fear is not great enough, the Iraqi government has been known to carry out random arrests of thousands of citizens, subjecting them to inhuman treatment according to the logic that this helps to flush out opponents of Saddam. No wonder that every knock on the door makes the hearts of Iraqis stop.

If this is the way the ‘innocent’ are dealt with, what of those who actively oppose the regime? The violence against anyone even suspected of opposition (and their family and friends) is of course no less ferocious. Whole towns, such as Dujel, have been wiped out in hours because a couple of townsmen were found to be actively opposed to Saddam Hussein.

Iraq floats not just on a pool of oil, but on an ocean of blood. According to the lowest estimates, over ten per cent of the Iraqi population has been killed by Saddam Hussein and his regime over the three decades of its rule.

A choice of evils

To choose between good and evil requires only the common sense of ordinary humanity, but to choose the lesser of two evils requires wisdom. This wisdom is now desperately needed. The Iraqi people now find themselves at a junction where either path is full of danger. In the absence of an ideal solution, they must choose whether to back or oppose a U.S. ‘war on Iraq’.

To oppose such a war would be to maintain the status quo. That is for another million Iraqis to be slaughtered, hundreds of thousands to be tortured, and an entire nation subjected to fear and individually encapsulated in their own oppression.

To support such a war would mean that several thousand Iraqis would be killed during bombing and fighting. It would also mean that the U.S., not the Iraqi people, would decide the make-up of the post-Saddam government. Yet, almost all fellow Iraqis I have spoken to - from the United Kingdom and North America to those who have recently escaped to Syria, Iran or Jordan – express their support for the U.S.’s call for a war to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The reason for this near-unanimous support is the reality in which Iraqis live. No war, no government can ever be as bad as Saddam Hussein’s regime. Iraqis are so desperate that even a Latin America-style or Shah of Iran-type ruler would be preferable to them.

Those who oppose the war say “It should be left to the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam Hussein, if that is what they want.” But this argument ignores the fact that over half a million Iraqis have given up their lives attempting to overthrow Saddam and his regime. More than 200,000 Iraqis were slaughtered in the 1991 uprising trying to do just that. At least 100,000 Iraqis have been executed or tortured to death in Iraqi prisons attempting to do just that. No less than 200,000 Iraqi Kurds have been killed, in the infamous Anfal operation and other operations in northern Iraq, trying to do just that. The Iraqi people cannot overthrow the regime on their own, so to oppose regime change in Iraq is only to lock the Iraqi people in Saddam’s box.

http://www.opendemocracy.com/debates/article.jsp?id=2&debateId=69&articleId=486

I really don’t believe what I have just read. Sulman who? The same guy who was sent into hiding for over a decade now coming out to lick Iranian butt? In literature, It is called battered housewife syndrome.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NYAhmadi: *
In literature, It is called battered housewife syndrome.
[/QUOTE]

Oprah is not literature Ahmedi...you will never get it.

yawn Nothing that hasn't been said before

Chaltahai, I am now more into Dr. Phil.

*Originally posted by Chaltahai: *

** He may have regurgitated....a lot of people here do that...but not as well. **

yeah but then they dont get accolades for their regurgitating skills. He just gets mentioned because he is "controversial"

*The good thng is that both have spoken the truth about the situation. And they are both Indian :) *

yep, both indian muslims. Although Farid is def brighter :)

Now which indians did not want an attack on Iraq..i though a read a post about it just yesterday. Indian ambassador to UN V K Nambiar comes to mind.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NYAhmadi: *
Chaltahai, I am now more into Dr. Phil.
[/QUOTE]

hahahahhahah.. I assume ti's the shiny pate

No he gets mentioned because he is an award winning writer. Who had a death warrant posted against him for writing fiction. I hope that clears it up.

As far as Indian ambassador's comment. It;s more for Pakistan's sake. Unilateral action and all. :)

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chaltahai: *
No he gets mentioned because he is an award winning writer. Who had a death warrant posted against him for writing fiction. I hope that clears it up.
[/QUOTE]

I eagerly await his statement about how cholestrol is bad for you or some other ground breaking statement regarding the sad state of English cricket.

yup having a death warrant against you qualifies you to be a noted authority on anything...right.? as long as he does not start yip yapping about the new table tennis regulations I guess he is okay.

*As far as Indian ambassador's comment. It;s more for Pakistan's sake. Unilateral action and all. *

surrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre ...

Fraudiya: I am not sure if you are being facetious. But in any event. Him having come from the subcontinent. Born during the partition. Do read some other books besides the overly hyped one and you get an idea whether he deserves to comment on political issues.

BTW/ Browning was a poet and a Romantic.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chaltahai: *
Fraudiya: I am not sure if you are being facetious
[/QUOTE]

well are u sure now :D

i have read his books, even satanic verses, but that is aside from my point.

being recognized for saying something important and ground breaking is one thing, and just repeating it and getting ooh and aahs because one is infamous/famous/notoroious/legendary (take your pick) is another.

NYA has said more important stuff than Rushdie, i dunn see anyone calling him some courageous thinker.

I just wonder how much the west pays him for that...I think he earned more mo' in past by stating such biased comments than by selling his titles.

Fruadiya: Is that it? Any other "factual" information that you are going to provide on why Salman rushdie shouldn't be writing politically inspired column's? or is it just the usual middling answers? BTW? I think someone's waiting in C&A for career advice. :)

I think Rushdie’s political opinion/writings are more relevant/newsworthy than a lot of the authors that are posted here. And by once again criticizng mainstream Islam, I think he is indeed courageous. How many of us have had a death warrant leveled against us and continued to do what we thought was right anyway?

:crying: Is the West the devil behind everything you disagree with? Or is it because the truth hurts? Or is it just an overwhelming tendency toward conspiracy theories?