Humiliating" the Arabs? And if so... so what?

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Azazel

I think they have it wrong. Journalists are a bunch of alcoholic bastards.

Yeah. They're probably gay, too.

It is well known that journalists are heavy drinkers. They are not gay. Only rightwing politicians are.

Maybe Azazel is dissapointed that the Jewish killing machine did not get to Saddam first? Tough luck Azazel. No gloating for you this time.

[Kuciwalker]

I was wondering, do Muslims believe in the seven deadly sins? If so, humility is good for them

[Az]

Maybe Azazel is dissapointed that the Jewish killing machine did not get to Saddam first? Tough luck Azazel. No gloating for you this time.

But I am. I wish we'd get Saddam first.

You, on the other hand, seem to be sorry that they got Saddam.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Azazel
You, on the other hand, seem to be sorry that they got Saddam.

Democracy does not mean that one has to share every single thought one has. You have a totalitarian concept of Democracy, but that is understandable.

[Az]

Democracy does not mean that one has to share every single thought one has. You have a totalitarian concept of Democracy, but that is understandable.

If you want to troll, please make it at least somehow connected to the issue that you're responding to.

[Datajack Franit]

LOL Azazel, you are the last person I expect to say sth like that

Poor Saddam..

[Bereta_Eder]

Re: Re: Humiliating" the Arabs? And if so... so what?

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

To summarize: American imperialism is threatening; economic vassalization is humiliating. Given America's foreign policy, both sentiments are not unjustified.

Exactly.

Guess what's going to happen in Iraq: the money of the reconstruction will go back to the US through profits.

Precicely.

Now if you spent a few hours handcuffed on the public place, would you feel humiliated? Would you then feel like denouncing other resisters, or would you rather bring them food in their shelters?

Not only that. They go to houses and drag men, women and children out, literally terrorizing them. Haven't you seen the video with little children crying in the embrace of their mothers?

This is invasion pure and simple. Hell even the Nazis justified the burning up of whole villages and the murder of whole male populations under the argument that it's "fighting against terrorism".

You can't liberate someone by blowing his 2 year old son's guts out and then say sorry, collateral damage, but hey you're free now! (we'll suck you for all you got).

of course there's going to be anger. Duh.

[Bereta_Eder]

And be seen as humiliation.

[Az]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
LOL Azazel, you are the last person I expect to say sth like that

Poor Saddam..

I am joking.

[Patroklos]

Heh,

If you are actually insinuating that America is going to make money off this venture then I will just start ignoring you now, because you obviously have no idea what your talking about. However, I will tell you who will make money. All those European pacifists who didn't give a dam about libertaing Iraq but sure are whining about their contracts (which they will probobly eventually get). Good for them, no investment and good returns.

Yeah colonialism is a horrible thing, good thing nothing even resembleing it is going on. No population transfers, no social codes, no taxation, partial home rule, and the occupation force doing its damnedist (you can argue how good they are doing but not whether they are trying) to leave. Yep, direct correlation, great job. But your right, I bet our European critics know alot more about colonialism having been the imperialists for a few centuries and all, and we just having the experiance of a colony.

An invasion, you are correct. Though I don't think anyone has denied that, only debated on why. And of course I expect things to be destroyed and people to be killed and @Paikitis I suppose so that we don't have to make any woman and childeren cry we just won't search for the enemy, I bet that will end the war and the suffering of the Iraqis much sooner....

As has always been the case, you are trying to apply the modified civilized world that your societies have crafted for you to the raw real world that now exists in Iraq and in that world; people will die, infrastructure will be destroyed, wars are nessecary, no war is ever about truly unselfish causes (not that America ever claimed that), and the losers were humiliated though at least when America does it we rebuild the country so they don't experiance it for nothing. Of couerse we could use Fance and Britians WWI victory policy since you don't seem to like our way and that is the only other.

This whole equating America and conservatives to Nazis and Facists thing is interesting, Really, is admitting that you have no true arguement that can hold up to logic and reasoning so you arbitrarily associate us with a word that generates hate for anyone hearing it, and of course anyone bieng associated with it. A good tactic, though totally unfair and vile, like one that was used by, say.... Facists?

-Pat

[MrFun]

Re: Humiliating" the Arabs? And if so... so what?

Originally posted by Oerdin
Every time some despot falls in the middle east--an all-too-infrequent occurence, unfortunately--we hear from the left that this is wrong, because it "humiliates the Arabs" (or the Muslims), with their presumably ultra-sensitive national pride. (Of course, the same sort of pride--in a much milder form--is considered intolerably "racist xenophobia" when displayed by Americans, but I digress.) As proof, we get video clips of the latest mob-for-hire shouting "Death to America!" out of their own free will with no coersion whatsoever--in Teheran or Islamabad or Cairo or Tripoli, those bastions of free expression of public opinion.

Those people who get those panties all bunched up by worrying about the "feelings" of the poor Arabs are just extremist idiots.

[dannubis]

No, the average american is not going to make money out of the iraqi adventure. The 'friends in high places' however ... and this is the sentiment living amongst those 'pacifist europeans'. So take your mindless accusations and stick them where the sun doesn't shine.

And as far as the facist thing goes, it is just an argument that can be followed. In none of your comments you have ever considered that the society model you charish might actually be morally equal to theirs. How unfacist of you indeed...

[Sandman]

How about HERE, HERE,
HERE, Here, and HERE for starters.

Two Aljazeera stories and three pages from the Randi Foundation Forums, two from the same thread?

The Aljazeera stories are about Arabs feeling humiliated, not left-wingers arguing that it's bad to humiliate the Arabs, as you claim in the first sentence of the first post in the thread:

Every time some despot falls in the middle east--an all-too-infrequent occurence, unfortunately--we hear from the left that this is wrong, because it "humiliates the Arabs" (or the Muslims), with their presumably ultra-sensitive national pride.

And no-one on those Randi Foundation threads, left-winger or otherwise, is arguing that winning the war was a bad thing because it humiliates the Arabs, a small handful either urge caution or don't care.

You seem to be confusing the capture of Saddam with winning the war, as well. Not showing those pictures of Saddam in order to avoid humiliating Arabs is quite different from not winning the war in order to avoid humiliating Arabs:

When the left says "don't humiliate the Arabs", what it really means is "don't you dare win the war, your enemy might not like it!".

[alva]

Oerdin, it's a relious thing, not much you can do about it.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Heh,

If you are actually insinuating that America is going to make money off this venture then I will just start ignoring you now, because you obviously have no idea what your talking about. However, I will tell you who will make money. All those European pacifists who didn't give a dam about libertaing Iraq but sure are whining about their contracts (which they will probobly eventually get). Good for them, no investment and good returns.

Yeah colonialism is a horrible thing, good thing nothing even resembleing it is going on. No population transfers, no social codes, no taxation, partial home rule, and the occupation force doing its damnedist (you can argue how good they are doing but not whether they are trying) to leave. Yep, direct correlation, great job. But your right, I bet our European critics know alot more about colonialism having been the imperialists for a few centuries and all, and we just having the experiance of a colony.

An invasion, you are correct. Though I don't think anyone has denied that, only debated on why. And of course I expect things to be destroyed and people to be killed and @Paikitis I suppose so that we don't have to make any woman and childeren cry we just won't search for the enemy, I bet that will end the war and the suffering of the Iraqis much sooner....

As has always been the case, you are trying to apply the modified civilized world that your societies have crafted for you to the raw real world that now exists in Iraq and in that world; people will die, infrastructure will be destroyed, wars are nessecary, no war is ever about truly unselfish causes (not that America ever claimed that), and the losers were humiliated though at least when America does it we rebuild the country so they don't experiance it for nothing. Of couerse we could use Fance and Britians WWI victory policy since you don't seem to like our way and that is the only other.

This whole equating America and conservatives to Nazis and Facists thing is interesting, Really, is admitting that you have no true arguement that can hold up to logic and reasoning so you arbitrarily associate us with a word that generates hate for anyone hearing it, and of course anyone bieng associated with it. A good tactic, though totally unfair and vile, like one that was used by, say.... Facists?

-Pat

Patroklos, I don't disagree with anything you say - except that the US will not make money out of it. I think it could, but we can bypass that for the moment.

Oerdin is wondering why the Arabs are reacting the way they do. I simply try to convey the other side of the story without necessairily agreeing with it, or claiming it as my own.
But it IS the other side of the story. And perhaps it can help have a more well rounded perception of the whole image for those who can't - I'm not saying YOU can't.

I accept I trolled a bit when I talked about Nazis, but I think it's midly interesting that the word "terrorism" was used by them too.