|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Oct 19, 2004 16:07:57 GMT
Margaret Hassan, senior charity worker who has been kidnapped in Baghdad has been broadcast on Al-Jazeera. As someone who is married to an Iraqi and had lived in Iraq for 30 years she was taken by a so far unnamed Iraqi armed group. This is a charity worker now, head of Care International's Iraq operations. If anyone wants to help Iraq it's people like here, Car Internation said of Mrs Hassan "She has been providing humanitarian relief to the people of Iraq in a professional career spanning more than 25 years". This is yet another thoughtless kidnapping, they're not going to do the country any favours by kidnapping their own people (and lets face it someone who has lived there that long, is married to an Iraqi and heads a charity for rebuilding Iraq is as good as any born Iraqi). No demands have been made yet either, this kidnap problem is now escalating further and it was already out of control. What can be done about this new crisis?
|
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Oct 19, 2004 17:19:38 GMT
I'm afraid we've already gone a long way past the point of no return, and that the interim authorities have landed themselves in a real mire. Quite simply, there is no way I can see that this sort of thing can be avoided in the short term except by withdrawing all aid workers from Iraq altogether, which is not an option as that will push the country further into the kind of chaos that encourages more terrorism.
Quite simply they have to try and sit it out and hope that there are still plenty of aid workers whose courage and compassion outweigh their terror of what may happen to them while they're working in Iraq.
The only way this could have been avoided, or at least kept to manageable proportions, was if, as John Kerry said yesterday, GWB and TB had had a proper plan for winning the peace and not just for winning the war. They didn't as all they put effort into protecting during the conflict was of course the oilfields. The resulting unrest and destitution of millions has left many of them believing that their only option to improve their lot is violence.
But there's no point in if-onlies now of course. As I say, the people trying to rebuild Iraq have to grit their teeth and work on in the hope that they can improve life for people there before the terrorists can reduce the country to civil war.
I'm not optimistic, especially if they're even targeting people like Margaret Hassan who, as you say, Rob, is more Iraqi than Irish these days.
EDIT NOTE: I previously referred to Margaret Hassan as British on this post. I've since learned that she's from Dublin, so have altered the post accordingly.
|
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Oct 19, 2004 18:41:40 GMT
Well, this is on of the main things I feared oh-so-long-ago when the 'Iraq War' topic debate was raging, and how right we are now. Conditions in Iraq have ended up so bad it's just chaos out there. Saddam's been captured and the country is under the interim government, 'now what?' seems to be the general idea. Getting elections is one answer but with a high level of anarchy and violence in the streets elections would be impossible. It seems there is no way forward at this current stage, and now the US want us to bring in more of our troops to do their job for them. As much as this makes me sound bigheaded, but from my stance during the war to now then I have to say "I Told You So!"
|
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Oct 20, 2004 6:42:01 GMT
It doesn't sound particularly big-headed in fact. The fact is, the war-mongerers were warned two years ago that terrorism (what the war was... HAH!... supposed to be fighting against) would increase and anarchy would set in if Iraq was invaded, and especially if inadequate provisions were made in advance for supporting and maintaining the country should Saddam be toppled. These warnings were sneered at as being wishy-washy liberalism and were swept aside.
So I think a little "I told you so!" is perfectly justified in the face of all that.
(We're drifting off-topic slightly by the way, as it's supposed to be about the media impact on terrorism.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Oct 20, 2004 8:38:39 GMT
If you want to pull back on0topic, then let's put a contrast up.
The press's impact on terrorism:
It gives them attention, which only encourages them.
Oh, that's all I can think of. Now let's look at the Bush impact:
He CONSTANTLY talks about terrorism, and since he's the most powerful man in the world, surely that gives them a lot more attention.
He doesn't actually DO anything about them, so they get their attention without any punishment. Not that he doesn't claim to be punishing them. He's not, though.
He has destroyed two stable governments, causing the proliferation of terrorism and the growth of two hoplessly weak democracies. Hey, Saddam was a bastard, but at least he kept order.
He also, as previously mentioned, continues to fund around 70% of the terrorist groups around the world, and maintains strong relations with Saui Arabia (the worst human rights record in the world, now officially.), Albania (not much better) and other such 'Democracies'. Notice that democracy, in this case, includes no elections, rights, freedoms, or money for the peasant classes.
Perhaps if politicains weren't allowed to talk about terrorism unless specifically asedk a direct question about it, we'd be ok. But while the press has often cynically used the threat of terrorist activity to boost sales, that's exactly what politicains have done too. And no-one's trying to ban them harping on about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Oct 20, 2004 10:51:43 GMT
Well said, and there's plenty of politicians I'd love to see shut up, in more ways than one. But I wouldn't dream of actually making it happen
Further to that, here are other cases worth considering...
Four years ago, no one had ever heard of the Taliban. Only a few people had probably heard of Afghanistan, and hardly anyone could point it out on the map. So how come we know so much about them now?
The answer is, in 2001 one daring female British reporter who was born in Afghanistan braved the hazards of re-entering her homeland with TV cameras (an offence that would lead to the death penalty if she were caught), and smuggled out video tapes carrying copious evidence of the Taliban's atrocities against its people. These atrocities could easily be classed as terrorism, and so any regulation on such things could have meant the truth was not exposed unless it suited the British Government to release the tapes.
Equally, few people had heard of Al Qaeda a few years ago. It was only the destruction of the World Trade Centre that brought it to the centre of public consciousness. Would the world have been better off if the WTC's destruction had been kept quiet? How, for that matter, can we possibly keep such things under wraps?
|
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Oct 21, 2004 14:02:00 GMT
Of course it is! Without a government any country would descend into anarchy. Think what would happen if all authority disappeared in this country: Murderers would not be punished, looting, etc. It happened briefly in Iraq immediately after Saddam was overthrown, remember? There was no proper government, no law enforcement (occupation troops were busy fighting remnants of Saddam’s troops), and that caused social breakdown. As soon as troops actually took over government of Iraq the looting largely stopped.
Depends on the circumstances. If Britain was ruled by a brutal dictator who suppressed virtually every liberty, and an external force invaded, and was trying to instate a government which was not as oppressive I would be rather pleased. And things like human rights have to be brushed aside temporarily in some circumstances.
Lucky I can then; this unelected leader will not kill people who voice their disagreement with him. In Saddam’s Iraq, if you voiced any dissent against his government, if the authorities got wind of it you would disappear Nineteen Eighty Four style. And not only yourself, but your entire family; erased from records. Despite the problems with the corrupt Yank controlled government, it seems better in that it doesn’t kill those who disagree with it, don’t you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Oct 21, 2004 14:29:16 GMT
So would I. I'd also be pleased if that were really what George Bush and Tony Blair are trying to do in Iraq right now. But what they're doing has all the hallmarks of creating a puppet state to suit the West's unquenchable thirst for oil.
And who told you that? Oh of course, Bush and Blair told you that, therefore it must be true I suppose?
Plenty of people have been disappearing in Iraq over the last year, and not just because of terrorism. And this interim Iraqi government, let's not forget, was put in place by outside powers who have introduced draconian legislation in their own countries under the pretext of "fighting terrorism". Among other things that Allawi has done so far, he has reintroduced the death penalty and closed down Al Jazeera for broadcasting material that "incited violence". In other words, material that told of things Allawi wanted kept secret.
Nope, never. If human rights aren't sacrosanct, what is? Answer? Nothing. Therefore there is nothing in the world worth compromising them for. And besides, if human rights are worth compromising here, doesn't that underline what we've been saying all along? That this whole "War Against Terrorism" and "Struggle For Freedom" is just a sham?
About the only thing I agree with you on is that there does need to be some form of Government. But even there, I can't believe that any form of Government is better than anarchy. Some are immeasurably worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Oct 21, 2004 14:38:16 GMT
Yes, while only two of the people who've 'disappeared' without any reason in the US are alledged to have been murdered (so far), plenty of others have vanished off to unlawful imprisonment.
And don't forget that Saddam was actually quiet popular. His approval rating was probably higher than Bush's (but then, at times so is that of congenital herpes), and he had many staunch supporters. Saddam was a STRONG leader, and many people like strong leadership. Otherwise, Bush wouldn't stand a hope in hell in the upcoming election.
As for this 'briefly' business about Iraqi anarchy, Doesn't the fact that there's an ongoing civil war, a rapidly growing muslim fundamentalist movement, and virtually no law enforcement (how do you think all these kidnappings are happening? A country with a working police force doesn't have such problems.) seem just a teeny little bit wild to you? Just a little uncontrolled? a bit nuts, maybe?
As for your claim the looting stopped, I don't think it did. It wasn't reported as much, but that's because there were newer, more important stories. Like the huge uprisings, the loss of entire cities, and the spate of kidnappings. The looting probably cut down a lot, certainly, but thats because everyone was too busy fighting to go around thieving.
Worse, the Yankie government, only really there for oil, will only really CARE for the oil. It's not particularly important on their 'too do' list to sort out, for example, health care, or education. Look at the record the US has on those two in it's own country, for christ sake. Imagine what they'd do in an ailing third-world subject, aside, obviously, from removing all basic workers rights (Texas), all environmental controls (Entire US) and moving all their favorite corporations in to use the cheap labour and non-existant taxes (ANY US satallite nation).
|
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Oct 22, 2004 17:57:59 GMT
You're not living in the real world. If you believe that in all circumstances 'Human Rights' are the priority, your grasp of reality is poor.
Let's take an extreme circumstance. We either violate the human rights of a terrorist from Al Qaeda, who we know to have a bomb in London due to go off within the day, and find out where the bomb is and stop it. Or, we idealistically give this terrorist his human rights and let all the people in the bomb's blast radius die.
Now let's take the Iraq example. We either, to impose order on the country, sod the 'human rights' of Iraqis for the time being, which is necessary to install order, or alternatively we give them their human rights, like in your utopia, and let the country remain in anarchy for the time being. Choose.
To conclude, everything is worth violating if it aids a greater, better, higher purpose.
And to your question in the second sentence, ‘If human rights aren't sacrosanct, what is?’, my answer is collective human existence.
If the poll was conducted in Iraq you seem to have missed something: If anyone was found to be speaking out against Saddam...read my last post.
If the poll was not in Iraq, where was it?
And I don't dispute that, but what I retain is that this new government will not suppress freedom of speech in its entirety, and generally be better than Saddam's government. Any idea how many citizens Saddam unmercilessly killed in his reign?
On the death penalty, I hate to digress, but I feel I must:
First point: Iraq is in anarchy. Brutal measures are required to impose order (my reason for my opposition to those who regard human rights as the ultimate priority).
The Death Penalty accomplishes two things: It is a greater deterrent, and it removes the murderers from the equation permanently. How secure do we think Iraqi jails are if there are car bombs going off all the time in most cities? Prisoners can be freed, and unless the terrorists invoke the will of Allah, nothing can revive the deceased.
I'm not going to go into the morality side of the argument unless someone prompts me.
No one really knows about that. As you suggested, it might be that there’s nothing left to loot, or that all the looters have joined the local militia, or they’re all out kidnapping people, or none of the above.
No, the press would get wind of it, and that wouldn’t look too good on B&B would it?
Precisely why brutal measures are required to bring the country under order.
|
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Oct 22, 2004 19:19:58 GMT
Will, if we're going to reinstate the death penalty, remove human rights and use brutal measures to keep order than how is that any better than what Saddam was doing?? Are you saying we've come all this way only to realise that actually Saddam had the right idea after all and that to restore and keep order we have to use the methods he did?
I think what he means is, correct me if i'm wrong, that the poll was taken in Iraq AFTER the collapse of Saddam's regime, sort of a 'do you prefer Saddam or Bush?'.
People disappear under strange circumstances very often, if the press reported ever single case and made a fuss of it no one would care. Plus most of these people aren't found and it can't be linked to who did it, the press can't make much out of it really, no matter how much they sensationalise it.
They're making a great start of not surpressing free speech by stopping Al Jazeera with no genuine reason. Plus by using the methods your suggesting there would undoubtedly be abuse of the system by people like Saddam who just want to remove their enemies, take away human rights and put people subject to the death penalty and brutal methods and you might as well put Saddam back in power and apologise for the disturbance.
|
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Oct 22, 2004 20:23:22 GMT
You're not living in the real world, mate. If you believe that in all circumstances 'Human Rights' are the priority, your grasp of reality is really very poor. Ah the typical patronising "you're not living in the real world" Tory boy routine, which the right wing will always resort to when they want to defend the indefensible. YOU are not living in the real world, Will, because you're assuming that what's in Iraq now is better than what was there before just because it's the tempting thing to believe. Reality is always far more complicated than we want it to be, which is why we shy away from it, and the simple fact is that we have no reason whatsoever just to assume that Allawi will be a more benevolent ruler than Saddam was. Indeed, seeing the things he's done so far, I'd very strongly argue that we have plenty of reasons not to. Er, and how would stopping a terrorist from blowing up half of London violate his human rights? I don't remember any statutes in history that stipulate that it is a basic human right to commit murder. Yeah, right. And a damn fine job it's done of that in Iraq so far, wouldn't you say? Just ask Ken Bigley. Oh I'm sorry, you can't. The Death Penalty is as much a self-deterrent as a crime-deterrant, as it discourages sentencing, except from unscrupulous judges who shouldn't be in the job in the first place, and encourages greater ruthlessness on the part of the criminals to protect themselves from detection. Typical, smug, right-wing bollocks. Who is to define what a "greater purpose" is? How is one to define this "greater purpose", or when it has been achieved or how long the draconianism should last? It's just a blank cheque for Government indiscretions. And as both I and Rob have pointed out, it involves creating exactly the sort of inhuman society that Bush and Blair claim they were fighting to get rid of. What was the point of a war against tyranny if what you create is exactly the same as what was there before? The real reason you're saying all this is because you can't bear the truth that, whatever it likes to pretend, the West is no better than the Middle East. So you admit that the Coalition and the new Iraqi regime are brutal then? So what is the point of the war AGAINST terrorism? What good has it done getting rid of Saddam Hussein? I believe that's the very point Ruzl was making. We don't know anything that's happening in Iraq as clearly as you're assuming. You claim that the looting stopped after the troops were reassigned to peacekeeping duties. We have no idea whether that happened at all, or whether that was the reason why. (The word is MAINTAIN, not retain.) But this is what I keep asking and you don't answer it; why do you say that? Why are you so confident that the new Government of Iraq will be any better than the old one? On what evidence do you base this claim with such assurance? Do you know what Iyad Allawi is really like? The shutting down of Al Jazeera shows how in favour Allawi is of freedom of expression, as the aforementioned imprisonment without trial of the two scientists shows how much he cares about due process of Law. And how are you sure that so little of the violence in Iraq right now was sponsored by the interim Government? We have no idea whatsoever what's at the heart of most of these things as the information that filters out of the country is so sketchy and unchecked, while assuming Allawi's a better man just because he isn't Saddam Hussein, or just because he was installed by Western Governments, is naive. (In the 1930's, Marxists were always saying what a wonderful man Josef Stalin was just because he wasn't Adolf Hitler, even though Stalin was responsible for the deaths of many times more people.) With the USA's (and Britain's) long history of overthrowing Democratic Governments in the Third World and replacing them with dictatorships that they are confident will be friendly to Western commerce, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Allawi just turns out to be another Ferdinand di Marcos, or General Pinochet (or indeed another Saddam Hussein, who, let us not forget, was a much-loved ally of ours before the invasion of Kuwait). |
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Oct 22, 2004 20:41:52 GMT
That's the thing, your view seems to be that when Saddam does these things he's a sickening and evil man, quite correct of course, but when us or 'governments' set up by us have to do it to 'keep the peace' then it must be done and there's no way around it, which is precisely why all these months ago I was so strongly against the war and nothing has yet happened that has convinced me the war has achieved much, sure we captured Saddam and killed a fair few of his nasty relatives and mates.
We 'liberated' the country and got a laugh out of Comical Ali but what else is being done, all the coalition soldiers killed fighting, all the Iraqis and aid workers killed in various incidents, all the terrorists this could have created, all the chaos and public disorder that was non-existant under Saddam.
We've done the bit where we go in and kick out Saddam but it doesn't stop there, there must be a rebuilding process, order must be restored and if you're going to resort to the same methods Saddam used then why have we thrown him out? All we know he has certainly done wrong is mass murder and violations of human rights and if we put 'brutal' methods in place then then the new rulers will be soon guilty of that also. The whole thing sounds like quite a paradox really.
In other Iraq news, Margaret Hassan has been released in a video pleaing for her life, just as Bigley did. Care International has withdrawn from Iraq in response to the kidnapping, saying they would not tolerate their employees being put at such risk in their jobs. Also a poll taken in Iraq showed that were the election there held right now, the religious parties would win it easily and not the interim government, No doubt U.S think how ungrateful this is, I mean you go to all the trouble of destroying their country and they won't even vote for you? It worked with Bush Snr!
|
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Oct 22, 2004 21:14:54 GMT
Indeed.
Just to clarify, a life without basic human rights is not a life worth living. The point when I'm told that they're merely privileges that a Government can withdraw from me whenever they feel it essential (which always means "whenever they feel like it") is the point I would be prepared to die to get them back.
But above all, even if it were all right to brush aside human rights in some circumstances (which it isn't), it's the height of stupidity to think they can be compromised in the present situation in Iraq, as that will also compromise the very message that the Coalition is trying to get everyone to swallow. If even part of the goal of the war truly was democracy and freedom and a country where people have the right to live as they choose and be treated with decency, then suspending human rights, even temporarily, will defeats that purpose. Good ends never justify evil means, but when the means actually start contradicting the ends, the purpose will fail. As things stand, democracy can't flourish in Iraq because BOTH sides are doing things that undermine its credibility and destroy its practises. And as Rob has pointed out, the people of Iraq are therefore saying, "This is democracy, is it? Not impressed so far. Let's try fundamentalism instead!"
The credibility of democracy can only survive as long as those who choose to preach it will also choose to practise it. (And that's just the practical argument, never mind the moral one.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Oct 23, 2004 14:05:48 GMT
Will, the only important difference between Allawi and Saddam is Allawi is friendly to the US. At the moment.
On the other hand, as we've said, so was Saddam until WE stabbed HIM in the back with the whole Iran Contra thing. Know what that was? It was another example of the forces of good supplying weapons and funds to a pair of dangerous warlike dictatorships. Gods, we're so upstanding I find it hard to bear.
Human rights can't be removed for any justification, Will. The end NEVER justifies the means, the means must be justified first. Allow me to offer some examples of my own. REAL ones, not hypothetical 'There's a bomb in London' nonsense.
In order to make Russia the power in needed to be in WW2, to defend itself from the Nazis, Stalin spend twenty years working 30 MILLION people to death. Are thirty million deaths justified by the USSR defeating Germany?
To find drugs that would defend our troops (the british) from chemical warfare, we tested a variety on unsuspecting volunteers, many of whom were crippled or died. Incidently, we never got the drug. A little bit like all of the different things in Iraq haven't actually sorted it out.
In order to repair Germany, following WW1, Hitler turned it into a Facist dictatorship, murdered 6 million jews, conquered Europe, caused millions of other deaths, and everything else (there's too much bad to go into here). Justified?
In Veitnam, the US poisoned the farmlands, killed innocent civilians in their thousands, and supported ANOTHER dictatorship to prevent the country turning Communist. Justified?
Are you getting the picture yet, Will? End's don't justify means.
As rob pointed out, AFTER Saddam was toppled the Iraqis still said life was better under him. Because it actually was. Sure, he was a brutal dictator, and life under him was as bad as life under Allawi is, but at least in Saddam's Iraq, people's houses were still standing. You weren't likely to be killed by US troops after being given contradictory orders. You were able to watch Al Jazera.
The death penalty won't act as a deterrent. It'll make angry, desperate men into even more angry, desperate men who now have NOTHING TO LOSE. Just great, that. I've got a gun, if they catch me I'm dead, what should I do when I'm being chased? I'll murder anyone in my way! Yay!!!
And just let's list a few of the 'benevolent' dictatorships set up by the US, for comparison with Iraq.
Pinochet. He was one. The CIA (yes, those upstadning chaps at it again) funded and armed him, so he could take over Chile. He got rid of Human rights pretty quickly, too. You reckon Pinochet's one of the good guys, Will? His record isn't much worse that Allawi's, and he was running a country for twenty years.
Suharto, of indonesia. installed into power by the US in 1965, annexed East Timor and began what can only be called genocide on the inhabitants. The CIA gave him lists of 'Communists', who Suharto then had murdered.
Sadat, in Egypt. Has been hugely unpopular for years, stays in office through a potent military build with, you guessed it, US funding. Enemies of the state are located by those wonderful chaps at the CIA, and then they are imprisoned, tortured and executed.
Saddam Hussein. Let's just not bother going into this one.
Branco, of Brazil. Murderous son of a bitch, came to power in 65 through a -wait for it- US-sponsored-coup.
Belaguer, of the Dominican Republic, installed by (say it with me now) US marines, who put down attempts to re-instate the democratically elected president and allowed this military dictator (also known for ethnic cleansing) to remain in power until he died.
A fine bunch of lads, there. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. When it comes to governments they've installed, the US doesn't have a good record. At all. The Taliban are in there somewhere, not actually installed by the US but very much supported. So I'm afraid I don't quite have your faith in Allawi, Will. Particularly since I've seen his record, and it's not nice.
|
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Oct 23, 2004 14:20:54 GMT
The list goes on and on. The US and Britain are arch-conspirators AGAINST Democracy around the world. They tend to topple free and elected Governments all around the world, and the Governments that they appoint in their place are never noticeably better than what was there beforehand, and are usually substantially worse. From all current evidence there is no reason at all to have faith that what will emerge from the current flux in Iraq will be any better than what was there before (or will even be better than the flux for that matter). Allawi is a greedy, violent man who matches all the attributes of puppet dictators installed in other countries by the USA. The only change is that he will probably re-establish the pre-1990 relationship between Iraq and the West.
|
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Oct 24, 2004 16:23:10 GMT
If anyone would like to see a full list, then just post here and I'll do one for you. I might even make an article about it, if anyone would care for it. There's plenty, and many of them came into power in much, if not EXACTLY, the same way as that lovely Allawi chap that Critique's decided is the best thing for Iraq. For a full list of Allawi's crimes, see the 'Who is Allawi then?' thread. We'll continue to add to that as we find out more about the socially acceptable psychopath.
|
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Dec 11, 2005 0:20:11 GMT
Two Canadians, one American, and an elderly Briton, are being held hostage in Iraq by a little-known terror group calling themselves, 'Swords of Truth', who said the men, abducted in Baghdad last month, would be killed on Saturday if all prisoners in Iraq have not been freed.
The demand is visibly unrealistic, and perhaps there are signs that the terrorists' resolve is weakening as they keep allowing the deadline to be moved back. But time must surely be about to run out.
|
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Mar 7, 2006 12:42:13 GMT
The aforementioned Briton, Norman Kember, and his Canadian colleagues are still there - seems the media managed to forget about them - and have now appeared on a video broadcast on al-Jazeera. Not dead yet then. I'm sure Bush and Blair will find a way to spin this to make it look like they're the ones who've made sure the hostages survived.
|
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Mar 11, 2006 10:52:04 GMT
The American hostage, Tom Fox - who did not appear on the video broadcast - has been found dead in the Mansour district of Baghdad. He'd been heavily-beaten before being gunned down.
|
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Mar 23, 2006 12:41:44 GMT
At last! Someone's done something right in Iraq and there's some good news for the first time in eternity. Norman Kember and the two Canadians have been rescued from their captors by a multinational task force, and are now in the Baghdad 'green zone' recovering from their four-month ordeal.
|
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Mar 24, 2006 2:29:28 GMT
A small glimmer of hope, like a shiny penny in a cess-pit. Seriously, though great news. Let's hope they dodge the suicide bombers on their way to the airport :/
|
|
