Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: A Weblog

Thank you and Klein and the student for releasing these courageous, private, and moving communications.

Nothing could better express the tragedy of the past two years than this young woman's documentation of her own disillusionment and heartbreak.

Terrific series of exchanges! Thanks for letting us in on this private, heart wrenching, exchange.

Extraordinary. Many thanks. What this student writes in careful English is much of what I've been asking myself since returning to the US.

"With this entire neutral field, I find myself unable to understand the occidental behaviour. I feel that we have different definitions for the same concept. I really cannot understand their behaviour. Sometimes I feel I’m crazy. Imagine you are, for example, seeing a car as blue. And you realise that others are saying it is red."

I feel the same way. I completely don't understand the motivation or the perceived justice in blowing up buildings full of civilians. The fedayeen Saddam were not, under any reasonable interpretation of the words 'freedom fighters'. How can you not apprehend that if you permit those that bomb to hide amongst you, there will come a level of violence to your home? How can you not understand that the lesson of no consequences for terrorists acts is not a tenable positon? Taking off a uniform and hiding in sacred buildings and amongst your neighbors will only protect you from retaliation up to a certain level of violence. Can you REALLY not understand why people react poorly to being blown up? Was Afghanistan REALLY financially motivated? How can you, in tortured tones, gloss over, you know, the character and actions of the Taliban and Saddam? Do you really think we will sit still and do nothing?

Incredible exchange. The remarks of the student makes clear the heavy opportunity costs of the Iraq war. I wonder how much more damage to America will have to be tolerated before we come to our senses?

I'll lay good money that the woman is from Algeria.

This would be a country that has direct, recent experience with occupation by an occidental country, resistance to that occupation, and battles with militant religious extremists in the aftermath.

That kind of willful ignorance is the product of at least a lifetime of cultural conditioning.

Whether that person is from Alabama or Algeria.

A good reason not to have invaded Iraq.

But blaming the puerile morality, that is the result of that cultural conditioning, on the invasion of Iraq is just idiotic.

I see a flame war coming. I suggest shutting down the thread. Jason understood nothing. Mic Mac expressed himself with his customary ineptness, but I believe he's at Jason's level.

I see a flame war coming. I suggest shutting down the thread. Jason understood nothing. Mic Mac expressed himself with his customary ineptness, but I believe he's at Jason's level.

Posted by Zizka

ZISKA, IT IS YOU WHO UNDERSTANDS NOTHING AND IS A LOSER.

JASON & BIG MAC KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.

OPEN YOUR EYES, FOOL.

"In the past, Iraq helped us to be more educated."

Yeah, that Saddam was a wonderful fellow...when he wasn't murdering thousands and dumping their bodies in mass graves, or using chemical weapons on his own people, or leading them into wars that killed literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (not to mention hundreds of thousands of people in Iran and Kuwait).

"And today, when I watch documentary about Iraqi kids, I find that they don't have chairs in their classrooms,..."

And they're also deprived of pictures of Saddam in every classroom, and textbooks that extoll the virtues of Saddam, and lessons memorizing the praises of Saddam.

"I hope that what we live today isn't an introduction for a third world war,..."

Perhaps mademoiselle should read a bit about the Second World War. She could start with the Siege of Stalingrad (total deaths estimated at 1-2 million people, including more than 100,000 civilians).

This isn't an "introduction for a third world war" because no there are no totalitarian dictators left as strong as Hitler and Stalin.

"We will have the habit to hear every day news about blood, death..."

Again, mademoiselle ought to read a little bit about World War II. In approximately 5 years, approximately 50 million people were killed, including military and civilians. That's 28,000 people per day for 1825 days in a row.

"I feel it as it were my own pain because Iraqis are the most respectable persons in the Arab world ... They have also built for us "the university of science" and many primary schools."

Iraqis may be more "respectable" than other Arabs, but Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator, was and is a piece of human excrement. And a few textbooks provided to North Africans doesn't change that fact.

"But please where is the ethic in their war?"

Again, Saddam Hussein was responsible for the deaths of literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and hundreds of thousands of Iranians and Kuwaitis. He deliberately mass murderers (e.g. Abu Nidal, who has killed 275 people, and injured over 600 more), and attempted mass murderers (Abdul Rahman Yassin, who was involved in the 1993 attempt to bring down the twin towers of the World Trade Center). As late as 1993, Saddam Hussein was attempting to buy long distance missile technology from North Korea.

Not to mention the fact that economic sanctions related to Saddam Hussein's violation of cease fire agreements after the first Gulf War were causing the deaths of multiple thousands of Iraqis every year, especially since Saddam was using the oil-for-food money to build palaces (and perhaps give textbooks to children in North Africa).

"In fact, you, Americans you are softer with animals than with humans when they are Arabs and Muslims and from the third world."

What an incredibly ignorant and nonsensical thing to say! If you want examples of people treating other people worse than animals, look at what Saddam Hussein did to Kurds, Shia, Marsh Arabs.

Or perhaps Uday Hussein's treatment of women:

"Uday reportedly murdered at least half a dozen women and tortured countless others. When one woman complained about the abuse, Uday had her "stripped naked, covered in honey and killed by three starving Dobermans," according to Middle East Quarterly."

"I felt that they are resistant about being filmed (to speak about USA and to be filmed isn't a good idea, because in __________ we have to love USA,..."

Perhaps you should come to the USA. People in the USA spew hatred of the USA and its people all the time.

"It will not be new for Americans to kill their people, particularly when the profit is important: war in Afghanistan, war in Iraq,..."

What a load ignorant/imbecilic crap!

"There is no-one in my country who is loving the U.S."

Perhaps you should move to Iraq, then:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040813/483/olymos23008132026

Northern Iraq, in particular (where G.W. Bush is probably percentage-wise more popular than he is in the U.S.):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/The_Kurds/Story/0,2763,933579,00.html

Oops. That last post should have read:

"He (Saddam Hussein) deliberately sheltered mass murderers (e.g. Abu Nidal, who has killed 275 people, and injured over 600 more), and attempted mass murderers (Abdul Rahman Yassin, who was involved in the 1993 attempt to bring down the twin towers of the World Trade Center)."

Zizka,

Ad hominem and delete. Always the way to go. You don't need to bother with making substantative arguments.

Do you want to make a substanative reply to my claim that her e-mails demonstrate a moral obtuseness. Do you want to debate if that moral obtuseness is the result of cultural conditioning?

Or ad hominem and lock.

You guys sure disproved my suggestion that a flame war was on the way. Especially Adrian.

I didn't suggest deleting anyone. Just shutting down a thread that was going to turn ugly.

"Ad hominem" -- Big Mac, your first post was inarticulate, which is a reasonable criticism. (What does "A good reason not to invade Iraq" mean in your little post?)

I suppose that the word "customary" made it a bit ad hominem, since it suggests that inarticulateness is wired into your DNA.

I avoided substantive comment because I was biting my tongue so hard I could barely type. You're seeing the nice Zizka at the moment.

Can you imagine what people like Mark Bahner and BigMacAttack would write if they were sitting in this girl's shoes. They would be arguing for the extermination of the American people... When two of our soldiers are held captive on the wrong side of a border, all America cries. When 3,000 people die in a terrorist attack, we almost start a world war. But when Arabs / Muslims mourn the death and mutilation of tens of thousands of theirs, they're just wining. They should know that worse attrocities have been committed throughout history, damned! I think I "feel" this girl pretty well. It doesn't an exptional predisposition to empathy, after all...

yup— i'm depressed now. didn't cassandra eventually suicide?

'I didn't suggest deleting anyone. Just shutting down a thread that was going to turn ugly.'

Ahhh you didn't want the record expunged you just wanted to shut off further debate/comments.

'"Ad hominem" -- Big Mac, your first post was inarticulate, which is a reasonable criticism. (What does "A good reason not to invade Iraq" mean in your little post?'

It means it, her attitude, is a good reason too not invade Iraq. Was it really that badly worded or is it a case of expectations leading to muddy reading?

It means people pre-disposed to believe that Americans lack humanity are unlikely to greet Aamerican troops with flowers. Whatever the actual intentions of American troops.

Which is a pretty darn good reason to not invade those people.

'I suppose that the word "customary" made it a bit ad hominem, since it suggests that inarticulateness is wired into your DNA.'

It was not just that.

'Jason understood nothing. Mic Mac expressed himself with his customary ineptness, but I believe he's at Jason's level.'

While I agree with and understand what Jason said, I am a little insulted. Unless you meant Jason's level of prose and grammar. If that is what you meant Jason should be insulted. Doubly insulted because he does understand at least our half. Which is way more than nothing.

Now, enough tangents, who understands the other side better? Is this beautiful, progressive, muslim's comments the logical reaction of a reasonable person, to a questionable and brutal invasion of a far off land, that resulted in the removal of a monsterous regime, or are those comments a reflexive reaction based on a cultural inheritance?

BicMac, I am sincere in my desire to avoid a flame war. But the things Brad posted were sad, sensitive, interesting, and thoughtful. Your reponse, and several of the other responses, were brutish and kneejerk reactions by ideologues pumped to the gills with war fever.

This is still the nice Zizka.

BigMacAttack,

Your comments are, without doubt, evidence of a reflexive reaction conditioned by your cultural inheritance.

I'd sure like to know what our Algerian friend hears back from the US. I'd like to apologize. I hope she has heard a few apologies. I am sorry my country is so arrogant. It has a lot of good qualities. But it's very arrogant and wrathful.

"With this entire neutral field, I find myself unable to understand the occidental behaviour."

Y'know, we don't understand it either. I can't provide a rational explanation for this mess--even a lot of Republicans are having trouble. Maybe it's the water...

Historically, the last thing about European/Middle Eastern relations that I can explain sensibly was the defeat of the Ottoman Turks by the Triple Entente. That was simple colonialism; repugnant, but not in basis complex. But how to explain the US support of Israel? The shifting manipulation of Middle Eastern politics through the Cold War? And, at horrible last, the current war? Oh, there's oil, of course. And I can point to other reasons. But, other than oil, the reasons have to do with our internal politics or with political conflicts with third parties, not the Middle East itself. How did we manage to so thoroughly disengage ourselves from reality?

And yet...

Here we have these letters. Then there is Salaam Pax and the other Iraqi bloggers. It seems to me that disinterested personal contact may be a path back to reality. Perhaps, perhaps...

To criticize or reject this young woman's point of view is perhaps less useful than to pay attention to and attempt to understand the moral and emotional struggle of a perhaps not entirely untypical member of one of the many Arab cultures who are faced with the fact of a military confrontation between the US and a major Arab state. To expect an untroubled response is foolhardy to the degree of being mendacious. Like it or not, we have entered a major war, and war is a political failure of the first degree precisely because it is impossible to command those who have seen their people die and be maimed to be reasonable, to avoid irrational responses, to avoid holding a grudge, or to forget.

That is not to say that war is never necessary or wise, or that war is exclusively inhuman. Just ask any soldier who has been in serious combat and you will find that war is an inhuman horror. But war is also entirely human, unless we want to attempt to blame the chipmunks for a very well documented phenomenon in the long process of human social reorganization.

There is, however, great value in exposing yourself to the writings and experiences of the "enemy," their allies, and their sympathizers. Not only does doing so involve facing the fact that war is an entirely political act with serious long term political consequences, but it can also serve to remind that the opposition consists of human beings with their own energies, opinions, history, and moral intelligence. Fighting is nothing more than a method of influence, and failing to pay attention to the consequences of that method will not result in increased effectiveness.

Perhaps most importantly, recognizing the humanity of others, including their capacity to be moved to hatred, is critical to a realistic understanding that the future will in fact exist and will retain the power to develop social movements in reaction to the events of the past. The real danger of terrorism is that it may become more than a desperate tactic or cynical military method, but that the absorbtion by a culture that cannot find solutions to the need for economic development and social justice of a nhilistic philosophy of historical and religious blame may lead to a level of violence that will cause blind judgementalism to overcome the very will to understand that is the basis of civilized culture.

War is a serious challenge to all humanity, and serious challenge has the capacity to produce genius. Take on the moral challenge of understanding the enemy, even while standing up for the need to fight for a better world, and there will remain a chance to come through this thing well. Lose yourself instead in the cowdardice of foolish hatred and stubborn incomprehension, and people like Osama will succeed in leading you into disgrace and destruction.

War can be the highest of the moral arts, the very forge of civilization. When done with genius, force will be applied and agreement achieved without a shot being fired. Like any negotiation, this can never be accomplished without an intimate and clever understanding of the emotional and practical state of the oppostion, the reasons behind their condition, and the interests that are held in common. Like any human relationship, disrespect is more damaging than power.

Brad, it was a service of you to bring this young woman's writings to the attention of your readers.

Well, this is OT, but I don't see any way that war can be "the highest of the moral arts". At best it's a horrible mix of heroism and brutality.

Terrorism is politics by other means.

... and vice versa.

i really wonder if mark bahner was born an moronic arsehole ...got one tranplanted to his cortex or went to The Institute for Advanced Arsehole Studies and graduated with the highest ever marks they ever dished out....got himself a M.A(Moronic Arsehole)

All the crap thats going on now is at directly a consequence of European and US policy. The fucking moron forgets who put Saddam in power , who armed him to fight a war - simply becuse a US puppet was dislodged and US feelings got hurt. Whatever you may say about the Iranian mullahcracy they were popular when they throught he Shah out.....

As some pop/rock guy has no doubt sain...if u got your head up ur arse all the time you cant recognise the sme
Pointing out US conduct in the third world to such alleged human beings is a total waste of time energy and my carpels.

Good for the lady....she is surely from the Magreb....more likely from Tunisia or Morocco though....given that I've seen there is is notably less access to the net in Algeria than in Tunisia or Morocco.

now_you've_sold_me_on_calling_a_"person"_a_honky_ARSEHOLE

Sounds very interesting.

as for big mac...what do expect from a chap who chooses that as a handle....he'll be happy when he can post...The US Army....OVER 4 BILLION KILLED

'Good for the lady....she is surely from the Magreb....more likely from Tunisia or Morocco though....given that I've seen there is is notably less access to the net in Algeria than in Tunisia or Morocco.'

Excellent analysis Venky, really excellent.

Yes, if only we tried to understand Hitler better, we wouldn't have wars...of course, those of us still alive would all be speaking German, so I guess we would understand ever more so clearly...

Uh, Ron, make sure that you leave that strawman outside, or you'll *never* get the straw out of your carpet.

"Yes, if only we tried to understand Hitler better, we wouldn't have wars...of course, those of us still alive would all be speaking German, so I guess we would understand ever more so clearly...
Posted by Ron at August 24, 2004 06:25 AM"

Chruchill understood Hitler perfectly well, which is why Churchill opposed him. If Europeans had understood Hitler better, earlier, then perhaps France, Great Britain, Poland and Czhechoslovakia would have beaten Nazi Germany into the ground in 1938.

Zizka:

But the things Brad posted were sad, sensitive, interesting, and thoughtful. Your reponse, and several of the other responses, were brutish and kneejerk reactions by ideologues pumped to the gills with war fever.

Yes, the point of view expressed in the posted letters was obviously sincere and heartfelt. However, that doesn't make it immune to challenge.

Consider: at several points during the exchange, the author of the letters acknowledged that her world-view was influenced by her country's media, and that she found it hard to understand some of what Professor Klein said because their knowledge bases were so different. Is seems fair to ask, then, whether those media might have certain biases concerning the United States and Israel (as our media also do) and whether she might consequently have a distorted view of the conflicts in question. It also seems fair to ask why a Ph.D. student with Internet access who is fluent in French and English hasn't availed herself of the foreign media, NGO and government websites that might provide a more balanced picture of what's happening in the region - in other words, why she hasn't "exposed herself to the writings and experiences of the 'enemy'" as BC wisely urges us to do. Maybe she has availed herself of these resources, or maybe she has a good reason (like censorship) for not doing so, but I don't see anyone asking - instead, the consensus seems to be that we should politely indulge her occidentalism.

What I see above is the voice of a very sincere, thoughtful, intelligent person who somehow can't or won't challenge her own heartfelt sense of victimhood. I'm sure that if Brad published an exchange with an Israeli in a similar vein (the Arabs keep blowing us up, all we're doing is defending our homes, the West wants to see us dead), nobody here would give the author a pass. The same goes for the above exchange - the author's views deserve to be engaged intelligently, and her rational statements should be cause for self-examination among us, but there's no reason why we should validate or refrain from criticizing her irrational statements.

Wow, leave for the night and look at all the quality stuff you miss. As a rule of thumb, if I were interested in avoiding a flame war, I wouldn't open my comments as zizka did.

I am glad that folks in this area of the internet can speak with such enormous confidence about the moral rectitude of terrorists and tyrants. I would think that most people can identify with my position of 'understanding nothing'. What strikes many as emails written from a willfully blind perspective are, in this place of vast wisdom, revealed as nuanced accounts of a perfectly rational position. Whereas some might feel that it is impossible to separate a large strategic picture from the culpability of a Saddam (or even the Taliban, who we apparently should have left alone too), to separate the attack on the most powerful nation in the history with an analysis of a measured response, the great minds here see no need to burden ourselves with such things. It is obvious to some that at some point security means not allowing terrorists to hide anywhere, but to the enlightened we are the terrorists and deserve what we get.

Some people might find it odd that our emailing friend had absolutely zero regard for the population that is better off now than under Saddam, but those folks understand nothing. The idea that there is no relation between dictatorial rule and the will of those being ruled? Nonsense. An invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq is an invasion of the people directly, regardless of their circumstances. War is always wrong. If only we would withdrawal support for Israel, the Islamic world would blossom and love us. When they again attempt to drive Israelis into the ocean and Israel has to REALLY defend herself without our help, killing thousands and thousands in the process, well, that isn't our problem. Peace, love, and naivete, man.

That's it. Pathetic insults are the sum of your arguments.

Let me explain further.

If some David Duke reading hillbilly from Alabama openly spoke about their wish to see 100s of millions of Muslims die you would be outraged. You would point out their immorality. If some hillbilly dismissed Arabic culture you would label them racist.

You would not accept their defense that their assertions were merely the logical reaction of a reasonable and tolerant fellow to 9/11. You would rightly point out that 9/11 hadn’t changed their views it had just allowed them to express those views out loud. You would point out that they had always been intolerant and racist. And you would be right. Such viciousness isn’t created overnight. It is the product of years of cultural conditioning.

But when a young David Duke reading Arabic woman expresses those same views –

'I don’t respect the culture that creates these criminals’ minds and the majority of American who think that this war is right, but its management that is wrong. I hope death for the 40% of Americans approving the policy of Bush (referring to French television) despite these clear crimes.'

You call her view’s courageous and moving. You speak of her disillusionment, heartbreak and the tragedy of it all.

If some hillbilly from Alabama spoke of the conflict in terms pure evil and pure good you would label them a dangerous religious fanatic like his deluded president. If some hillbilly from Alabama said while he thought what happened in Abu Gharib was wrong but you had to understand that their were reasons, as in Muslim behavior, why it happened you would be intellectually and morally offended. If you were smart and smooth like Oliver Kamm you might use the term ideological apology for terror. Alas that is not the case.

When a young Arabic woman says the same things –

‘At this second, in Iraq there many people dying. These people are the best kind of human beings, they are resistant. Their killers are their opposite.

I’m sure that finally will come the date where we, all of us, will cheer for excluding the power of evil from Iraq. And I’m waiting for this date. And until it comes, I will define things truly: America is a terrorist country. And Iraqis are resistant. (Although what happened last Wednesday [the mutilation of corpses in Fallujah] is refused in our religion and in my opinion is horrible and unacceptable, but it has its reasons.) ... I hope that everything is good with you.’

you call her sad, sensitive and thoughtful.

Not only that but when someone has the audacity to point out the savage barbarism of those remarks you label them inept, brutish, and a knee jerk.

It is not just intellectually inconsistent to the point of dishonesty, it is also patronizing and racist.

Again the young woman’s comments are not particularly thoughtful and reflective reactions to US policy in Iraq. They are the unthinking product of years of cultural conditioning. Much like your thoughtless dismissals of my posts.
Now does anyone have anything to offer other than more insults?

PS

As for but. To the extent that you accept Glenn Reynolds buts I accept her buts. Or put another way, not at all.

venky writes, "The fucking moron forgets who put Saddam in power , who armed him to fight a war -"

I don't "forget" at all. I ***know*** who armed Saddam Hussein to fight the Iraq-Iran war.

Who do ***you*** think armed Saddam Hussein to fight the Iraq-Iran war?

Please provide the approximate number and country of manufacture for the following Iraqi military equipment in the Iraq-Iran war:

1) tanks,

2) armored personnel carriers,

3) artillery guns and howitzers,

4) attack helicopters,

5) transport helicopters,

6) surface-to-air missiles,

7) bombers,

8) fighters,

9) interceptors, and

10) air-to-surface missiles.

Finally, tell me what the standard issue military rifle was for Iraqi soldiers in the Iraq-Iran war, and what country or countries supplied it.

Or can't you do that, you ignorant twit?

Facts are to leftists as holy water is to vampires! :-/

Do we have to spell it out in crayon? The war is unjust, but that never stopped anyone declaring war. The issue here is whether or not we will have to endure another 30 years of American guilt films such as Platoon and Born on the 4th July. Are your memories so short? We can throw a number of words about, such as 'communism' or 'oil', but what it comes down to is the US behaving like a pre-war Germany. The propaganda, the voting irregularities, bullying weaker neighbours, denouncing minorities...sound familiar? Yeah, get rid of gay marriage. Might as well get rid of rock n roll and replace it with oompah music. The rest of the world now views America with the same hatred and contempt...try going abroad and see peoples reaction when you state your nationality. I suggest lying and saying that you are Canadian.

The rest of the world now views America with the same hatred and contempt...try going abroad and see peoples reaction when you state your nationality.

Let's see...here's how some Iraqis in Greece reacted to seeing people dressed in uniforms clearly marked, "USA":

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040813/483/olymos23008132026

Looks to me like that Iraqi guy in the right-center is trying to strangle that poor woman from the U.S.! ;-)

"Can you imagine what people like Mark Bahner and BigMacAttack would write if they were sitting in this girl's shoes."

If I was an ignorant leftist I would probably write ignorant leftist drivel like this young woman does, e.g.:

1) "It will not be new for Americans to kill their people, particularly when the profit is important: war in Afghanistan..."

2) "In fact, you, Americans you are softer with animals than with humans when they are Arabs and Muslims and from the third world."

But I hope I wouldn't spew genocidal hatred as this woman does, e.g.,:

"I hope death for the 40% of Americans approving the policy of Bush (referring to French television) despite these clear crimes."

I can't imagine myself ever wishing for the death of 100 million men and women, who have done nothing more wrong than, "approving the policy of Bush..."!

But, of course, I'm not an ignorant leftist, so I can never be in this woman's shoes.

P.S. I'm also not a woman...but I know plenty of women who would also find wishing for the death of 100 million people morally repugnant. So I don't think it's a man-woman thing.

I wrote, "Looks to me like that Iraqi guy in the right-center is trying to strangle that poor woman from the U.S.!"

...but I think I may have been wrong. On looking at the photograph further, I think he may be about to stab her with the Iraqi flag.

;-)

Hi BigMacAttack,

what you are totally missing is that she also apologized for those thoughts. And she is also actively seeking a differing opinion from her own, to challenge her own views (which admittedly she is not doing very successfully). She is very well aware of the limitedness of her own view.
All of these things (and many more) can not be said about your fictional Alabama Hillbilly.

Big, if you want to have a thoughtful discussion, please read this: http://www.ukpoliticsmisc.org.uk/usenet_evidence/argument.html#5.%20The%20Principle%20of%20Charity

There's something that's extendind their hand - all you can think of is slapping it, and telling her that she's plain wrong and that there is no need to take into account any of what she has written? That certainly helps a lot... in comforting yourself.

@Mark Bahner
>Let's see...here's how some Iraqis in Greece
>reacted to seeing people dressed in uniforms
>clearly marked, "USA":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1288686,00.html

----
To the embarrassment of their media handlers in Athens, members of the Iraqi football team have reacted furiously to the news that their efforts are being used to aid Mr Bush's efforts to win a second term in the White House.

The team's coach, Adnan Hamd, told Sports Illustrated magazine: "My problem is not with the American people. They are with what America has done; destroyed everything. The American army has killed so many people in Iraq. What is freedom when I go to the stadium and there are shootings on the road?"

One of the team's midfield players, Ahmad Manajid, accused Mr Bush of "slaughtering" Iraqi men and women. "How will he meet his God having slaughtered so many? I want to defend my home. If a stranger invades America and the people resist, does that make them a terrorist?" he said.

Mark Clark, the spokesman for the Iraqi Olympic squad in Athens, accused journalists of taking advantage of the players. "They are not very sophisticated politically. Whoever posed these questions knew the answers would be negative. It is possible something was lost in translation. The players are entitled to their opinions but we are disappointed," he said.
----

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/olympics/2004/writers/08/19/iraq/

And consider that these are the comments that got out _despite_ the strong pressure and control:

---
The team's managers, in any case, refused to allow more than a handful to be interviewed, and those that were permitted to speak said they did not speak English. So their coaches and other Iraqi sports officials stuck close by them to translate, and occasionally to embellish, their answers to reporters' questions.

As a result, whatever the players might be willing to say about the situation in Iraq — and Atia said in Arabic that he was quite unhappy with the presence of American troops — was converted to vague expressions of hope for security and more foreign donations for sports in Iraq.
----

And you would have thought that at least the people that were definitely known to have suffered from Saddams TOrture would be more positive towards Bush - because as http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,10241812-23210,00.html tells us:

----
THE tools of torture used by Saddam Hussein's slain son, Uday, to punish underperforming Iraqi athletes were displayed for the media today at a Baghdad sports stadium in advance of the Olympic Games.

Journalists were shown medieval-style torture equipment, including an "iron maiden-like" casket with metal spikes inside that athletes were forced into.

There were also chain whips with steel barbs the size of tennis balls attached to the end.
----

Yet they nothing but contempt for Bush and the US government - that should tell you something.

(I didn't research this myself. To credit the source: http://bodyandsoul.typepad.com/blog/2004/08/a_couple_of_wee.html )

Anon,

'what you are totally missing is that she also apologized for those thoughts. And she is also actively seeking a differing opinion from her own, to challenge her own views (which admittedly she is not doing very successfully). She is very well aware of the limitedness of her own view.
All of these things (and many more) can not be said about your fictional Alabama Hillbilly.'

I am sorry but those Muslim make me want the USA to [Insert brutal response here].

Yea no chance my fictional Alabama hillbilly would say anything like that. You would never hear that kind of stuff and if you did their comments would be considered sad, sensitive, thoughtful. They would be considered disillusioned and heartbroken by the tragic situation.

Right? LMAO.

'There's something that's extendind their hand - all you can think of is slapping it, and telling her that she's plain wrong and that there is no need to take into account any of what she has written? That certainly helps a lot... in comforting yourself.'

The thread try and find the thread. I am not particularily interested in castigating either Alabama hillbillies or Algerians for their cultural intolerance. [Now the left, that is another story]

'You would not accept their defense that their assertions were merely the logical reaction of a reasonable and tolerant fellow to 9/11. You would rightly point out that 9/11 hadn’t changed their views it had just allowed them to express those views out loud. You would point out that they had always been intolerant and racist. And you would be right. Such viciousness isn’t created overnight. It is the product of years of cultural conditioning.'

or

'That kind of willful ignorance is the product of at least a lifetime of cultural conditioning.

Whether that person is from Alabama or Algeria.

A good reason not to have invaded Iraq.

But blaming the puerile morality, that is the result of that cultural conditioning, on the invasion of Iraq is just idiotic.'

The point I was making was that the US invasion of Iraq didn't create those views. Those views are the result of years of cultural conditioning.

My reward for pointing out the obvious was a series of childish insults.

It became apparent that I would need to detail the intolerance in her remarks to back up my assertion.

What thoughtfulness she does show just highlights the depth of the cultural influence.

Anon,

'Yet they nothing but contempt for Bush and the US government - that should tell you something.'

They also believe that US troops are using night vision gear to see through their women's clothes while they occupy Iraq at the bidding of Joooos.

Perhaps a democratic civil Iraq will change that. Perhaps the US occupation will lead to a democratic and civil Iraq. Or perhaps not. Perhaps such views will only become, if possible, more prelavent.

But one thing is for certain those views didn't develope over night.

If Al Gore were president and there was no occupation Iraqis would still hate and distrust the US.

Comparisons with David Duke... Jews and blacks have not invaded Duke's state, that I've noticed. Nor have a long prior history of abusing Louisiana or the USA.

C'mon, guy, that's a false analogy.

Randolph Fritz,

'Comparisons with David Duke... Jews and blacks have not invaded Duke's state, that I've noticed. Nor have a long prior history of abusing Louisiana or the USA.

C'mon, guy, that's a false analogy.'

I didn't compare anybody with David Duke. I said if a David Duke reading Alabama hillbilly and a David Duke reading Arabic woman said the same things many quite apparently would condemn one and embrace the other as courageous and thoughful.

I am not sure how you view that analogy as false. Perhaps you feel that it is ok for an Arabic woman to read hate filled pap but not ok for someone from Alabama to read hate filled crap?

Which is pretty much my point.

A completely different take on all this from a physician: 1) This lady is clinically depressed. 2) She might be in love with the professor. One of my colleagues agrees with my assessment. People often are not as advertised.

Which do you prefer, the rule of law or the rule of the jungle? An Israeli "democracy" or an American "democracy"?

In the rule of law, perpetrators are caught, fairly tried, and punished.

In the rule of the jungle, people who share at least one trait of the perpetrators are killed or terrorized as punishment for the perpetrator's acts.

In a society ruled by law, no innocent need fear the government. In a society ruled like the jungle, no innocent is safe.

To read this post, from top to bottom, from in-country or near-country on the ground victim, to MicMac Adrianazi arm-chair veteran psychopath, is a redux of Western occidental "civilization".

Absent Uday, who was clearly a psychopath, there is nothing that Saddam did that the US hasn't done to it's 3rdW neighbors, or that our client states haven't done on the CIA's directive.

Look what Eisenhower did to Indonesia, millions of their innocent land-reform civilian reformers labeled Communist insurgents, then slaughtered.

America is a terrorist state. Get over it.

Our national debate is at the same point as the national debate in Russia during their own foray into "bringing freedom" to Afghanistan, when the citizens began to complain about the slaughter, and the Politburo merely poo-pooed and began the wholesale slaughter campaign the US CIA hired Osama bin Laden to organize the fight against.

One day a nation of freedom bringers against a ragtag group of freedom fighters, the next day, the dissolution of an entire state, and a former freedom fighter now fighting the Great Satan.

What goes around, comes around.

Americans will never be able to travel freely overseas again. Ever.

BigMacAttack, no traditional ally of your hillbilly's nation has hasn been invaded by Arabs or been subject to three generations of abuse by Arab geopolitics.

It's still a false analogy.

Interesting that she didn't question why she was being subjected to the horror of war and antiamericanism on TV every night? Saddam was a good and kindly guy- a noble leader- blech. She is not cynical enough- so she is the equivalent of a troll or doesn't really have any exposure to the occidental worldview except through the prism of arab propaganda.

She sounds a lot like the innocent Soviet kids that used to become pen pals during the 60's and 70's. Propaganda exists on both sides- and exists to cloud the truth. Now whose truth wins is a matter of power, flat out.
The winners write the histories, and the losers will weep over them.

"Americans will never be able to travel freely overseas again. Ever."

Maybe not to France. But I have no desire to return to France, anyway.

The Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary...maybe Poland...I wouldn't mind going to all those places. They look beautiful in pictures.

And I have no worries at all about my plans to go to Britain, to buy Tony Blair a beer. Or ale, or whatever the h@ll he's drinking.

The writers write the histories, and sometimes the winners are confounded at the results. The longevity of culture over war and power, despite centuries of active suppression, is well known. This is one of the many reasons why even a well intended war (even assuming that is actually the case) carries great political risk. Americans can spend thousands of lives and trillions of dollars in an effort to install a fair and representative government in Iraq, while the "resistance" fights to loot the country and install a harsh and repressive system of religious totalitarianism, but as long as the Arab media portrays our efforts as brutal imperialism and our opponents as noble freedom fighters, all our blood and treasure may become counterproductive, and to end the fighting our choice may be reduced to a repressive regime of either enemies or allies, in either case a political failure. This was one of the main military/political problems encountered during the cold war and in some ways is the very root of the modern genesis of terrorist movements.

The writers (and now videographers) who synthesize the beliefs of the people may have a larger hand in the outcome of events than any military effort.

Mark...are you denying the US auded iraq substantially in its war against Iran...even encouraged him? there is a photograph of rumsfeld galdhanding saddam...or doesnt that get publishe in the us?...most of the weaponry was from the USSR...but the chemical precursors etc were mainly from Germany and the US

p.S. uR STILL A m.a....UR SUBSEQUENT POSTS ONLY RE-INFORCE THAT...MAKE THAT M.A. (HONS.)

Randolph Fritz,

'BigMacAttack, no traditional ally of your hillbilly's nation has hasn been invaded by Arabs or been subject to three generations of abuse by Arab geopolitics.

It's still a false analogy'

Yes it is a false analogy. Iraq was a pariah state not a traditional ally of Algeria or anyone else except maybe Syria.(Allies tend to be situational and not traditional)

Yea my analogy is imperfect.

The hillbilly's nation was actually attacked. Something like 3,000 civilians were deliberately murdered. He wishes death on the 10s of millions of Muslims who support Bin Laden.

The young Arabic woman's nation is not actually attacked. A far away nation is attacked. She wishes death on the 10s of millions of Americans who support Bush.

Not a perfect analogy. But close enough.

Posters on this board find the young Arabic woman courageous and sensitive.

They would find the hillbilly guilty of racism and moral depravity.

Very odd. Even stranger they appear to think that young Arab woman's views are not the result of cultural conditioning but rather a reasonable set of conclusions logically reached and hillbilly's views are an expression of thoughtless brutality.

On August 24, at 4:08 am, "venky" wrote about me, "The fucking moron forgets who put Saddam in power , who armed him to fight a war..."

Then I pointed out that I hadn't "forgotten," and knew very well who armed Saddam Hussein for the Iraq-Iran war. I challenged venky to provide the approximate number and country of manufacture, for the following weapons used by Iraq:

1) tanks,

2) armored personnel carriers,

3) artillery guns and howitzers,

4) attack helicopters,

5) transport helicopters,

6) surface-to-air missiles,

7) bombers,

8) fighters,

9) interceptors, and

10) air-to-surface missiles.

"Venky" apparently can't do that, but he does manage to pull out of his "arse" the fact that, "most of the weaponry was from the USSR..."

So I misjudged you, venky. You are not ***completely*** ignorant. You know that "most of" Iraq's "weaponry was from the USSR." (But do you know what country, after the USSR, that provided the largest amount of weaponry? Hint: Think high-tech weaponry, like air-to-surface missiles, fighter aircraft, and interceptors.)

So you *aren't* completely ignorant, venky. But you are, to use your own words, "a...moron." You KNOW that the USSR was the country most responsible for arming Saddam Hussein for the Iraq-Iran war. But the fact that the ***USSR*** mostly armed Saddam for the Iraq-Iran war doesn't matter to you, because you STILL blame the U.S. for what the ***USSR*** did! How typical of an irrational, fact-ignoring leftist moron! (Pardon the redundancies.)

JRossi wrote, "A completely different take on all this from a physician: 1) This lady is clinically depressed. 2) She might be in love with the professor. One of my colleagues agrees with my assessment."

1) Clinical Depression: Well, that would certainly change my opinion of the young woman. She's still ignorant, but maybe her mental illness (clinical depression) is preventing her from obtaining or rationally processing information. That would definitely change my opinion from disdain to sympathy.

2) In Love: Ummmmm..."the Professor" here is Jill Gabrielle Klein, is it not? Are you saying that you think this young woman could be in love with another woman? I expect that alone would be enough to make one pretty depressed, if one lived in a Muslim country in North Africa!

Thanks for your opinions/insights. These possibilities--especially the first--certainly change my opinions of the young woman.

But what did the professor write?
Useless without that part of the dialogue.

"But what did the professor write?
Useless without that part of the dialogue."

Yeah, reviewing the emails, the "love" part seems a real stretch to me.

But I think I could see the "clinical depression." I'm ***not*** a doctor, but there are many phrases that seem to me to potentially indicate depression:

"We will hear every day that kids women, men ... are slaughtered for nothing. We will have the habit to hear every day news about blood, death...."

"I'm ashamed to be a human being."

"I hope that they will find a solution for the terrible virus in Asia."

"A sort of humiliation, hate, incapacity and sadness, and estimation for a black future. They had all black feelings. ..."

"I finally kept myself far from news, and I haven't for more than two days seen the TV, or sought for news."

"But I'm sorry because I'm not with my family. Because these days have their own taste when one is with his family. It's my first fête far from it and I'll go to work to minimize this strange feeling."

"I really need and want to change my mind and get another look for this world. Because I’m very pessimistic now..."

"For me, every day I become more nervous and stressed."

"I wrote you and I insisted in my questions, because I feel that what happen in our world makes me change to a horrible person. I feel this. And I don’t like to lose my humanity. ..."

"This is the influence of this war on me, I know it’s the first time I find myself aggressive, but images of kids and women massacred for liars and the international silence cannot have another influence. ..."

If she truly is clinically depressed, my suggestion that she research the battle of Stalingrad or the total number of people killed in WWII probably wasn't a good one. ;-)

Sine ira et studio - Without anger or bias. (Tacitus)

Mihi cura futuri - My concern is the future

Did the professor ask for permission to publish her emails?

Oops, sorry, only noticed now, the introduction says she approved the alterations so she must have approved the publishing. Nevermind.