[article]US fails to placate Arabs

Memnoch

So Bush's interview has not convinced the arabic people, well what else did he expect?

Did he really think that a simple interview and "damage control" talk would be enough to convince the arab world that all is well in iraq?

The problem for the Americans is that no-one in the Arab world believes these are isolated incidents; everyone expects far worse yet to come.

i think the handing over of Iraq to the UN's authority and letting them control how the country ends up governing itself is the only thing that would satisfy the muslim world at this stage.

i think the handing over of Iraq to the UN's authority and letting them control how the country ends up governing itself is the only thing that would satisfy the muslim world at this stage.

Doubtful. Most Arabs view the UN as being a puppet of the States anyway, so UN control wouldn't be much help. I daresay the only way they'll be happy is when/if the Coalition leave Iraq to the Iraqi's. And unless they actually leave without any conditions for military/economic advice/vetoing, the Arab community will continue to distrust the west. Alot of promises, very few actually met.

Memnoch

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3689477.stm

sorry forgot to post the link to the article in my original post

though i have to say, some of the arab media do seem to be making outrageous claims, one or two of the egyptian newspapers in particular

DadaKopf

I daresay the only way they'll be happy is when/if the Coalition leave Iraq to the Iraqi's. And unless they actually leave without any conditions for military/economic advice/vetoing, the Arab community will continue to distrust the west. Alot of promises, very few actually met.

Not entirely. There'll still be the question hanging over who owns the country's productive capital. From the outset, the country's economy will be nearly totally foreign-owned.

Hobbes

mass rape sounds like a tall story.

The one about the helicopter is real though. It's the famous apache attack video. You can get it on the net. It is quite disgusting video, the people are clearly not armed in it and the helicopter annilates 2 people and leaves one dying between two burning cars.

pork99

If moderate Arabs have these opinions then Bush has really screwed it up.

Indeed, as Bush said, the way the US military treated Iraqis is “not the way we do things in America”. Most definitely, we agree. But then, let us add, Iraqis are Iraqis and Americans are Americans and, notwithstanding the lofty founding principles of America and American respect for human rights, different sets of rules apply when Washington deals with Arab Palestinians or Arab Iraqis.

I doubt whether Bush has done much to reverse this perception.

Kerry has an uphill struggle if he wins. If I was American this would get my vote:

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/

In the end, America is safer and stronger when it is respected around the world, not feared.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0430.html

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2004_0414a.html

pork99

Originally posted by Hobbes
mass rape sounds like a tall story.

The one about the helicopter is real though. It's the famous apache attack video. You can get it on the net. It is quite disgusting video, the people are clearly not armed in it and the helicopter annilates 2 people and leaves one dying between two burning cars.

And the visible difference between guerillas/insurgents/partisans and civilians is? I've seen that video for all I know they could have been setting up a mortar or a booby trap.

Ajnag

Well if Arabs are so skeptical of the Un, then why the hell hasnt the leauge of arab nations steped forward, and offered to take peacekeeping dutys.This is one hell of an infuriating situation, Americas not wanted, The un is unwilling, mainly because nationed who didnt want the war, dont want the bill, and the neighbours are gettin pissed but not gathering the community to give support.Only one winner here, Osama.FFS! what a mess.I can only hope the Iraqi's dillegence show's through in a solution unseen.

The one about the helicopter is real though. It's the famous apache attack video. You can get it on the net. It is quite disgusting video, the people are clearly not armed in it and the helicopter annilates 2 people and leaves one dying between two burning cars.

Hobbes, I've seen both versions of the video, and in the longer one it shows one of the "victims" taking out a stick like object from the back of the truck. As much as i dislike the US & the occupation, I took it as a SAM/Stinger missile. Was it ever proven that these people were unarmed?

Well if Arabs are so skeptical of the Un, then why the hell hasnt the leauge of arab nations steped forward, and offered to take peacekeeping dutys.

Can you really see the Paranoid US allowing any Arab faction/Nation having power in Iraq? The only way they'll leave is if they have some control in how the country/military/economy is run.

shotamoose

From what I saw of the Bush interview he was defensive and seemed to be trying to make up excuses. The idiocy of this man is really starting to piss me off - his inability to do the sensible and decent thing (like saying "I'm really, really sorry. We will take every step necessary step to ensure this never happens again. We will prosecute in civilian courts in Iraq or America anyone who took part. And we will close and demolish Abu Ghraib prison") is increasing the danger for his own troops and everyone else in Baghdad / the Middle East / the World.

And it's not going to get any better. Seymour Hersh, the journalist who wrote the original New Yorker article that kicked all this off, says there's more to come. More pictures, more videos. There's rumours of sexual assaults on women and boys. The works.

I still can't get that picture of the female US soldier holding a naked Iraqi prisoner on a lead out of my head. You couldn't make a more effective piece of anti-American propaganda if you tried.

Hobbes

Originally posted by klaz
Hobbes, I've seen both versions of the video, and in the longer one it shows one of the "victims" taking out a stick like object from the back of the truck. As much as i dislike the US & the occupation, I took it as a SAM/Stinger missile. Was it ever proven that these people were unarmed?

I guess I saw more of the video then as well as listened to it. They took an item out of the truck then threw it into a field and left it there with other stuff they threw down at other spots. At no point did they hold weapons but the second he threw the weapon down you can hear the heli pilot saying "Smoke them" while the guy at base is telling him not to engage.

Then he runs up to a tractor, again no one is carrying any weapon. The ground guy says "Are they holding weapons", one guy says yes and he is attacking the other says no. The guy on the ground says do not engage unless they have weapons. He then proceeds to turn a guy into pieces, blow up the other guy who is hiding on one side of his tractor, then blow up a truck the other guy was hiding under, then the other truck when the person is clearly seriously injured is crawling away from the fire.

At no point does it look like they are setting up a SAM launcher. It clearly looks like a gun happy pilot blew away three farmers working early in the morning.

http://www.demandmedia.net/story/2004/1/20/122630/336

Listen to it.

Bare in mind I have watched it a couple of times to see if I could reconise the objects, etc and I clearly see three farmers being ripped to shreads. I am sure there are people in the Arab world who will only need to look at it once.

bonkey

Originally posted by shotamoose
And it's not going to get any better. Seymour Hersh, the journalist who wrote the original New Yorker article that kicked all this off, says there's more to come. More pictures, more videos.

]

Well, the Red Cross uncharacteristically broke their usual silence on such matters today, and pointed out that they have been raising the issue of systemic torture with the US government for some time. This would carry even more weight than the Amnesty Report, because by and large, the Red Cross get let where others don't because they only report to the government responsible. It is so unusual for them to say something like this that I'd be quite happy to believe there's more to come. I got the distinct impression, in fact, that they made their statement to help make sure that this didn't get characterised as an isolated incident.

There's also been a number of articles off google news all day where various reporters are now beginning to target Rummie for having being aware of the problem (again, via the Red Cross I believe) but not informing the President about, for whatever reason.

Dubya, in response, is apparently very disappointed in Rummie, but from what I've been reading seems reluctant to condemn the man, or even consider firing him.

My guess - this will let the buck will stop one step short of Dubya, if they can't divert it. And there's no way Rummie will be ousted until such times as everything has come out so that Dubya isn't left holding the can for a later revelation after getting rid of Donnie.

jc

Memnoch

Originally posted by bonkey


Well, the Red Cross uncharacteristically broke their usual silence on such matters today, and pointed out that they have been raising the issue of systemic torture with the US government for some time. This would carry even more weight than the Amnesty Report, because by and large, the Red Cross get let where others don't because they only report to the government responsible. It is so unusual for them to say something like this that I'd be quite happy to believe there's more to come. I got the distinct impression, in fact, that they made their statement to help make sure that this didn't get characterised as an isolated incident.

There's also been a number of articles off google news all day where various reporters are now beginning to target Rummie for having being aware of the problem (again, via the Red Cross I believe) but not informing the President about, for whatever reason.

i was right :P

spanner

did anyone think that one of the american women in the pictures looked like drothery out the wizard of Oz, i knew that little bitch wasnt as good as everyone thaught she was

bonkey

Originally posted by Memnoch
i was right :P

Perhaps. Probably. But that doesn't mean you could have known you were right when you made your decision.

AS I said somewhere else...if the US found WMDs in the morning, it still wouldn't exonerate them, because the information tehy based their claims on has already been shown to be false or untrustworthy.

Being proven right in hindsight isn't enough to justify premature condemnation. At least, not in my book.

jc

spanner

look theres the little bitch!!!! in the photo. i always knew the she was pure evil, magic shoes indeed

Memnoch

Originally posted by bonkey
Perhaps. Probably. But that doesn't mean you could have known you were right when you made your decision.

AS I said somewhere else...if the US found WMDs in the morning, it still wouldn't exonerate them, because the information tehy based their claims on has already been shown to be false or untrustworthy.

Being proven right in hindsight isn't enough to justify premature condemnation. At least, not in my book.

jc

bonkey - tbh in this instance i was 100 % certain that I would be proven right in time, and I said so clearly in my post... the thing i don't understand, is that.. knowing what we know, how could anyone thinking logically not have reached the same conclusion, let me outline the BASIC path of my reasoning....

1) We KNEW that the US exports people to other countries to be tortured.

so we know that the current administration has no qualms about torturing people if they think its necessary.

2) We KNEW that the US is holding many prisoners without charge illegaly in iraq.(and yes I can actually use the word illegal here, because even with the CPA's law's they can't hold anyone for more than 90 days without charge)

3) We KNOW that the administration's word counts for very little, as has been shown by the whole WMD fiasco.. they have either lied, or conveniently "forgotten" their own statements...

i've always been of the opinion myself that it was a systematic misrepresentation and manipulation that was committed, I just found it hard to believe, that so many intelligence reports that were either fake or just plain wrong managed to get through the to the top echelon's of the govt and be presented to the UN ???

4) We know that Amnesty international are a trustworthy and reliable humanitarian agency that don't seem to have any agenda's other than helping those in need around the world. And they had told us this was not an isolated incident

so knowing all these things, how can we think that they would NOT do this?

they torture ppl when they need to, so why wouldn't they do it in this case? what makes iraq so special to be exempt from their policies in this regard?

we also know that

5) they have very little value for the lives of iraqi civilians as demonstrated by their indiscriminate use of cluster munitions in civilian areas (read Robert Fisk's article from the Independent if u don't believe me) and recent events in Fallujah.

yet people seem to have this conformed naievete that this was somehow an isolated incident, purpetrated by a few "bad eggs" and the administration just knew nothing about it

halkar

It will be very hard to restore trust in Iraq for US after all everything they promised failing. First WMD and they probably can't even find DDT in the country. Then there was to give freedom, save the nation from torture of Saddam and now they proved the world they are no better than him.
To me they have failed misserably and damaged their relations not only to Iraqis but to world. The sad thing is they will not leave until they got what they want and that is to at least take control of the oil of Iraq and again to me looks like only way they will get this is to put another dictator in power and support him until he turns against them just like Saddam did. :rolleyes:
Did anyone see the commander that was in charge of the prison? She scared the sh!t out of me when I see her in an interview on the TV. Even having her in charge of the prison was torture enough
Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski

bonkey

Originally posted by Memnoch
tbh in this instance i was 100 % certain that I would be proven right in time

That has echoes of so many top British and US administration officials and their comments about finding WMDs in the first few weeks following the end of major hostilities.

They too said they were certain.

Do you not see what I'm driving at? You were certain, yes. My point is that you shouldnt be. Your certainty was not based on as solid a ground as you'd like to believe.

Now clearly you disagree with that too, and thats fine. Its fine because your certainty doesn't have thousands of innocent lives hanging on it, so there is effectively no cost in being wrong.

i've always been of the opinion myself that it was a systematic misrepresentation and manipulation that was committed, I just found it hard to believe, that so many intelligence reports that were either fake or just plain wrong managed to get through the to the top echelon's of the govt and be presented to the UN ???

I've always been of the same opinion (that it was deliberate), but I also accept that there are an awful lot of structural problems with the US administration which together could allow such a monumental set of screw-ups to occur once you pre-suppose guilt and look for corroborating evidence rather than looking at evidence and drawing a conclusion.

4) We know that Amnesty international are a trustworthy and reliable humanitarian agency that don't seem to have any agenda's other than helping those in need around the world. And they had told us this was not an isolated incident

Did they really tell us this? I thought they told us there was good reason to believe that this may not be an isolated incident.

Every single reference I saw to the Amnesty report (which I admit to not having had time to read itself yet) said that Amnesty reported that there were reasons to believe (or strongly suggest) that it may not be an isolated incident....or words to that effect.

In every single reference, the Amnesty report is referred to in terms which stop short of stating it for certain, but rather as a high probability.

Now, if that is correct, and if Amnesty weren't 100% certain...don't you think its a bit disingenuous to start presenting their report as something we know that was told to us as some sort of fact?

they torture ppl when they need to, so why wouldn't they do it in this case? what makes iraq so special to be exempt from their policies in this regard?

Guilty till proved innocent? Do I even have to argue the reason why this isn't a good base for a conclusion?

5) they have very little value for the lives of iraqi civilians as demonstrated by their indiscriminate use of cluster munitions in civilian areas (read Robert Fisk's article from the Independent if u don't believe me) and recent events in Fallujah.

Military tactics on and off the battlefield are entirely different in terms of the regard which is, or even can be, shown for humn life. Again, to me, drawing that comparison is fitting the data to a pre-formed conclusion, which is not a good way to analyse something in my opinion.

yet people seem to have this conformed naievete that this was somehow an isolated incident, purpetrated by a few "bad eggs" and the administration just knew nothing about it

Hold on...either address what I'm saying, or what people or saying, but stop mixing the two up.

I'm saying that it is still possible - and I would go so far as to say quite probable - that this particular incident was an isolated one. I believe that there is a good change it is not linked to the alleged systemic abuse which Amnesty and the Red Cross have both reported.

Consider, a day or so ago, you were openly doubting the claims that they did these things under orders. Such orders would be the link to the other incidents....because it would appear that the interrogation abuse was reportedly - at the very least - known about up as high as Rumsfeld, and therefore had to have been at least implicitly sanctioned to that level.

sovtek

Originally posted by Memnoch
So Bush's interview has not convinced the arabic people, well what else did he expect?

Did he really think that a simple interview and "damage control" talk would be enough to convince the arab world that all is well in iraq?



i think the handing over of Iraq to the UN's authority and letting them control how the country ends up governing itself is the only thing that would satisfy the muslim world at this stage.

IMHO this is what happens when you try to run your government and foreign policy " like a business" ie with PR firms and a corporate like managerial structure...where everyone stays " on message" and spin things like installing a puppet government as "bringing democracy" and killing resistance to occupation as "fighting terror on it's home soil".
I believe there is a marketing term where a company shows a commercial so much that it actually pisses people off and ends up hurting their image.
I also think that term also refers to when your advertising is so removed from reality that it does the same thing.
I could be wrong on the latter though.
Anyway....I think my point is that because of all of the above the Bush regime will never be able to "placate the Arabs" unless they completely ignore their nature and actually start treating people in that area of the world like they actually have a right to determine their future without hinderance.