India's "Saddam Hussein" village

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
LotM,



From the article in the OP. That pretty much says it all - they are not exposed to anything other than propoganda, and the basis for their hero worship is that Saddam "stood up to America." Which of course is pretty much a prerequisite for hero status in the Muslim world.

-Arrian

that says there is no talk about it there, not that there is no knowledge of it. Even someone watching only Al Jazeera would have SOME idea of the Shiite hatred for Saddam.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Aeson
So what you are saying is that nothing said here matters. Then why bother to address what I have said? Nothing you can say will matter.

Because I enjoy discussion for its own sake.

What we take/leave/whatever from a discussion and apply in our own lifes is our own choice. Your claim that all poly posters are apathetic to the issue is completely baseless speculation.

Yeah, it's speculation, but it's probably mostly true. I can think of only one person off the top of my head - OzzyKP - who has more than likely applied his discussions here to real world activism. There are probably others, but I'm willing to bet they're a distinct minority.

[Arrian]

Which is downplayed/ignored because the point is that he stood up to America. The atrocities vs. the Shiites and Kurds are minor details.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

I suggest you prepare yourselves.

So I should invest in some duct tape, right?

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

A paper bag and a place to lie down would probably be better.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Arrian
Which is downplayed/ignored because the point is that he stood up to America. The atrocities vs. the Shiites and Kurds are minor details.

-Arrian

I don't know about what Indian Sunnis tend to think, but many other Sunnis have decidedly dim views of Shiites. aneeshm?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Do you suppose they have any idea how Iraqi shiites feell about Saddam, or do they not care?

I don't think they do. But these are isolated villagers - we cannot generalise from these people to all Sunni Muslims in India, can we?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Because I enjoy discussion for its own sake.

Well, if you want to maintain the argument that your words here are meaningless, feel free.

Yeah, it's speculation, but it's probably mostly true.

Your insinuation that everyone here is apathetic is either true or false. If it is false, even just one person, then a statement made here obviously has the potential to impact that person... and anything they themselves impact.

I can think of only one person off the top of my head - OzzyKP - who has more than likely applied his discussions here to real world activism. There are probably others, but I'm willing to bet they're a distinct minority.

As you say. Not everyone here is apathetic, and thus a statement made here can have an effect.

(I also don't buy that "little" effects are worthless.)

[Aeson]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I think Aeson wants the US to not hang guys like Saddam, in order to avoid being hated like this. Conveniently ignoring that the US didnt hang Saddam, the Iraqis did (and before someone goes on about the "puppet govt" the more independent they are the more likely they are to hang guys like this)

It is much more in-depth than that. I do oppose the DP in all cases, but do not think simply killing someone is what makes a martyr. (It's obviously a very important step in the process though.)

Saddam's execution was handled very poorly, in a manner which could only further incite hatred. Also, regardless of whether you think the execution is justified or not, allowing Saddam to appear more calm, dignified, and human than his executioners in the video was inexcuseable. It can only serve the purpose of those who would use his death as propoganda.

You can say that we (US) have no hand in that, but we invaded Iraq, "control" the nation militarily, captured him, helped set up the Iraqi government, protect it, and turned him over to them. Given our involvement, the reality that we will be viewed as running a puppet government by some, cleaning up our own mess by some as well, and with what anyone rational would presume is our ability to influence the Iraqi government, we definitely either had a hand in it, or should have to prevent the stupidity from happening.

I think Saddam should have stood trial in an international court. This could have relieved some of the pressure on the current Iraqi government.

I think he should have been tried for all his crimes. That may have brought to light that it isn't simply a Sunni vs Shiite issue, as he committed crimes against both.

I think he should have spent the rest of his life in a US controlled prison (if found guilty... which is basically a given). That is because we are already going to be hated no matter what having been the invaders, occupiers, capturers, and ones who turned him over to face trial, and already hold (without trial) many (supposed) criminals from the region. We have the least to lose in the scenario, whereas almost anyone else would be accepting an increased risk. (On a related note, if it came to it, the trial could be a US one even.)

Past that, most of what I would say on the subject is that we shouldn't support dictators, even if at the time it seems to be in our best interests. We shouldn't train/fund terrorist groups, even if they are working against our enemy. These "best interests" of the US are what will be our downfall. We set ourselves up to be in no-win situations later on.

We don't control everything, but what we do control has it's impact on the world. And we've made a lot of stupid mistakes.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

I don't know about what Indian Sunnis tend to think, but many other Sunnis have decidedly dim views of Shiites. aneeshm?

It's a given fact, actually. The premier Islamic body in India, the Darul Uloom (which was the theological inspiration behind the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but is still responsible for the theological education of most Indian mullahs), treats ALL Shias, and even Sunni Barelvis as deviators. So do all orthodox Sunni commentators, for over the last 500 years.

[Darius871]

Edit: nm, wrong thread

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Aeson


It is much more in-depth than that. I do oppose the DP in all cases, but do not think simply killing someone is what makes a martyr. (It's obviously a very important step in the process though.)

Saddam's execution was handled very poorly, in a manner which could only further incite hatred. Also, regardless of whether you think the execution is justified or not, allowing Saddam to appear more calm, dignified, and human than his executioners in the video was inexcuseable. It can only serve the purpose of those who would use his death as propoganda.

You can say that we (US) have no hand in that, but we invaded Iraq, "control" the nation militarily, captured him, helped set up the Iraqi government, protect it, and turned him over to them. Given our involvement, the reality that we will be viewed as running a puppet government by some, cleaning up our own mess by some as well, and with what anyone rational would presume is our ability to influence the Iraqi government, we definitely either had a hand in it, or should have to prevent the stupidity from happening.

I think Saddam should have stood trial in an international court. This could have relieved some of the pressure on the current Iraqi government.

I think he should have been tried for all his crimes. That may have brought to light that it isn't simply a Sunni vs Shiite issue, as he committed crimes against both.

I think he should have spent the rest of his life in a US controlled prison (if found guilty... which is basically a given). That is because we are already going to be hated no matter what having been the invaders, occupiers, capturers, and ones who turned him over to face trial, and already hold (without trial) many (supposed) criminals from the region. We have the least to lose in the scenario, whereas almost anyone else would be accepting an increased risk. (On a related note, if it came to it, the trial could be a US one even.)

Past that, most of what I would say on the subject is that we shouldn't support dictators, even if at the time it seems to be in our best interests. We shouldn't train/fund terrorist groups, even if they are working against our enemy. These "best interests" of the US are what will be our downfall. We set ourselves up to be in no-win situations later on.

We don't control everything, but what we do control has it's impact on the world. And we've made a lot of stupid mistakes.

well KH, looks like I called it.

I think that in fact we have limited leverage over the Iraqi govt at this point, and that what leverage we have is best aimed at getting them to reign in Shia death squads, etc.

I dont think weve had nearly as much control as you suggest for a long time. We would never have wanted a united Shia block to win the Jan 2005 elections = in fact we may not have wanted elections quite so soon at all. Both things we accepted out of deference to Sistani, due to our knowledge that if the Shiites turned on us we simply didnt have the troops strength to beat them and Sunni insurgency at the same time.

I dont think theres ever been a moment since Saddams capture when we were in position to spirit him out of Iraq for international trial without creating major negative consequences for us among the Iraqi Shia.

The only ways to avoid an Iraqi run trial of Saddam, would have been either A. To occupy Iraq with 250,000 or more troops, instead of 140,000 or B. To kill Saddam in his spider hole ("he was resisting I tell ya, he really was")

[Arrian]

Wrong thread, D.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Aeson

Past that, most of what I would say on the subject is that we shouldn't support dictators, even if at the time it seems to be in our best interests. We shouldn't train/fund terrorist groups, even if they are working against our enemy. These "best interests" of the US are what will be our downfall. We set ourselves up to be in no-win situations later on.

We should minimize support for dictators. In some cases there really isnt much choice though. Even then we can avoid supporting the worst ones. Whom specifically did you have in mind?

As for funding terrorist groups, even against our enemies, I agree. I dont think everyone involved in the Afghan resistance was a terrorist, and I think it would have been a terrible mistake not to have supported them.

Winston Churchill famously said that if Hitler invaded hell, hed support aid to the devil. We may not be in nearly as dire a situation as Britain was in 1941, but the world remains a dangerous place, and we cant always limit ourselves to allies as pure as the driven snow.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by aneeshm


It's a given fact, actually. The premier Islamic body in India, the Darul Uloom (which was the theological inspiration behind the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but is still responsible for the theological education of most Indian mullahs), treats ALL Shias, and even Sunni Barelvis as deviators. So do all orthodox Sunni commentators, for over the last 500 years.

There's a difference between holding someone to be a deviate and considering his death to be a neutral or even good thing. Hell, I grew up in a church that considered Catholics to be heretics, yet none would've cheered at the murder of catholics.