One Lone Conservative's Reality in a Sea of Liberal Delusion's
I'm Shocked...Shocked Over the Double Standard!
Published on May 14, 2004 By couchman In Current Events
In the Aftermath of the brutally barbaric killing of Nick Berg, the usual reactionary questions are being asked such as why Berg was in Iraq, why didn't the US-led coalition protect him, etc; but they are just part of the course and are not unexpected by me or many others. But while I was gonna write bout Bergs death as my main talking or maybe what should be called bitchin' point, I decided to do bit of a side story related to the incident at hand, i.e. the reaction in the middle-east over it. Now while the reaction in both the US and in Europe is important as well...it is the reaction in the middle-east among both its mainstream media and more importantly, the "Average Iraqi on the Street" opinion.

On Saturday, Berg's decapitated body was discovered in Baghdad and surprisingly or disgustingly the video taped beheading of Berg by al-Qaida's Iraqi group Ansar al-Islam was posted on one of Ansar's sites on Tuesday almost as a recruiting/marketing video and calling the act a reprisal for the alleged abuses in the Abu Ghraib prison. By early Wednesday, the world press and public outrage began to pickup the story & make their feelings known except for one key area, The Middle-East. While some Arab press commentors condemned the barbaric nature of the crime, they mostly were annoyed (if we can use that term) that the act would draw the spotlight away from the prison abuses....so much for balanced reporting.

"In normal circumstances, I could condem the slaughtering of the American, but we are living in abnormal circumstances. I cannot condem it now..", said Egyptian columist Nour al-Huda Zaki,a senior journalist for the Cario paper Al-Arabi, went on to add to which I find almost laughable, "The country that advocated human rights priciples is now violating them and taking us back to the dark ages." Wow, so when did the US begin forcing Honor killings, baning women from an education, blame the ills of their people on say France instead of looking to themselves for the root causes , and ignoring and not prosecuting those who are involved in abuses......go figure!

Some of Zaki's words ring true as across the Arab world, very few banner headlines or TV reports touched on Berg's death let alone even did major reports on it. But like everything there are exceptions...most notably Kuwait's Al-Siyassah daily which did run a story with the photo of Bergs severed head held by one of the masked cowards, and yes they are cowards...not dediacted..not freedom fighters but cowards and I'm being nice not using my usual colorful metaphors to describe them. But Al-Siyassah wasnt the only exception in Kuwait, as 5 of 7 Kuwaiti dailies published front-page major stories on it. Intrestingly enough....the two biggest pan-Arab TV networks, Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya, did brief segments showing some of the sickening video Tuesday and later on Wednesday...noticably absent was the actual beheading itself. "The news story itself is strong enough," said Jihad Ballot a spokesman for Al-Jazeera and he added, " To show the actual beheading is out of the realm of decency." Okay, so its fine to show dead bodies of US servicemen and women, insurgents waiting in hiding to attack coalition convoys and the attacks itself but the beheading is out of the question? when did Al-Jazeera discover journalistic ethics?? Arab TV stations have shown in the past their zeal in airing bloody pictures from wars more so than any in the West but they "draw" the line at showing the beheading. Frankly their excuse rings bit hollow because regardless of what is the general opinion in that region, airing this deploreable act would have serious consequences for al-Qaida.

Generally most publications such as Al Rai in Jordan, several English-language papers in United Arab Emirates,among others ran major stories without any pictures and no Iraqi one ran the stroy but that may very well be because the news broke late...lets see in a day or two whats printed there.....

I would finally add that in almost comical fashion, both Hezbollah and Hamas made statements against the act to which the general media ran on...too bad their statements were a tired rehash of blame US as monsters.....but I began thinking what were their reasons to come out against those who did this...quite simply it smells like a simple smokescreen as Hezbollah must have gotten a Damascus spank to do it as Syria has been put under increasing pressure and sanctions by the admin and as for Hamas....they have been a roadblock to peace between Israel and the Palestinians and blaming the US in any way gives them credibility points in the region......

Some other networks such as both state TV networks in Jordan and Kuwait at least used still photos in their reports of the story.
When those that use the alleged abuses in the Abu Ghraib prison as some rallying point that the US is being hypocritical, or as an excuse to main and murder, I would argue that those abuses are being investigated and those responsible will be prosecuted.....aside from Israel...how many nations in that region can say the same. None!

Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on May 15, 2004

When you think about it, the United States can attack England for all the abuses the founding fathers suffered.


As far as I know America is still occupying a Middle Eastern country. A country they invaded without any provocation (unless you can prove unequivically that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. And how can you explain away the fact that Al-Qa'ida found its genesis in Saudi Arabia, one of America's staunchest allies in the Middle East).

This is happening now. As far as I know European countries have since learned from their mistakes (mistakes that cost them dearly. Algeria almost cost De Gaul his government and Portugal paid in a river of blood for Angola), mistakes that America refuse to learn from, or do you really want to and enjoy seeing the bodies of your dead young dragged along a dirt road.


I live in the U.S. and I do not see any of the following: "...baning women from an education, blame the ills of their people on say France instead of looking to themselves for the root causes , and ignoring and not prosecuting those who are involved in abuses......go figure!"

on May 15, 2004
believe that these are truths the American population needs to come to terms with before your government needlessly kills more of its own. Given much longer in Iraq the US will incur a casualty list as long as those suffered in 9/11. These deaths are even more needless than those as it has been your own government doing the killing (unless you really expected to invade someone elses country and expect no opposition. Just like the Vietnamese were supposed to greet you with open arms as back in '65-'75).


The basic facts regarding South Vietnam...which we didnt invade putz, we deployed as well as quite a few other countries there to support the South Vietnamese Goverment...South Korea and Austraila stand out....and intresting point is that the communist north didnt enjoy overwhelming support...as thousands fled to the South to fight against the north.....the only thing i get reading your posts is the observation that your looking at the world through a spy glass...never seeing the whole picture
on May 15, 2004
I live in the U.S. and I do not see any of the following: "...baning women from an education, blame the ills of their people on say France instead of looking to themselves for the root causes , and ignoring and not prosecuting those who are involved in abuses......go figure!"


As for Super Baby, paraphrasing me is the highest honor you granted me.......lol.....I'm flattered
on May 16, 2004
Draginol

Al-Qa'ida started operating out of Iraq overtly only after the US invaded. And yes, they would have found other reasons to kill Americans because America has given developing nations more than enough reason to hate it.

How MANY more resaons do i have to provide you with. Can you not even admit that US foreign policy since world war II has been flawed and based on inaccurate information and intelligence.

As far as I know we Australians have suffered no casualties in Iraq but America has lost approx 750 of its own. I guess the only way you will realise the folly of the past is if Bush starts conscripting. With the Vietnam war that's when the shit hit the fan domestically. It seems Americans need little more than self interest and self preservation to start seeing the actions of their government as something to be concerned about.

When you refer to the UN no-fly zones, are you also refering to the blockade that killed thousands upon thousands of children without touching the upper echelons of the Saddam regeime. Ohhhhh, that thing. Yeah, you guys must be real proud of yourself. The Iraqi's are only turning against you because they have nothing better to do on a saturday night.

Tell me how many of you have the conviction in your cause to kill yourself in its service. If you are so convinced that what is happening in Iraq is right and proper, offer yourself for service and go drive a tank for Uncle Sam. You can always start complaining when you come home missing a couple of limbs.

Couchman

You only installed a Christian government in a country that is more than 90% Buddhist. The South Vietnamese loved Americans so much that they were the first to start tossing grenades into restraunts. You have no idea do you. The Vietnamese war was always a war of independence. How can a country feel independent with a foreign military occupation of 550,000.

So what? The independence forces happened to be communist. If it wasn't for the Cold War America would not have cared less if the governement was made up of a consortium of illusionists. America seems to be a country that looks permantely through the "spy glass", you always see the positions and turmoil of other countries through the prism of what it all means for you. The Vietnamese war of independence became a communist issue for you guys because that's how you saw everything back then.

The problem with the US is that when they see a distorted image, they have the power to kill 1 million Vietnamese and 55,000 of their own before they realised that they had made a terrible mistake.

Project the same mistakes into the present day.

And i would like to make it clear that I in no way shape or form hate Americans. I quite like Americans. I find them charming and intelligent. Just the same way I like my fellow Australians. But in both cases it does not mean i have to like either countries governments or their actions abroad. A soldier on the field has no choice but to follow orders, and a lot of them do NOT agree with what they are doing, but they are patriots fulfilling their duty (praise to them), and the civilian contractors are there to either help Iraq back onto its feet or to make money (neither which are ignoble causes depending on how they are done.

I just don't like the people who send out the orders. They are persuing their own agendas and i don't know why it is that when people are given freedom they tend to forget the benefits of questioning.
on May 16, 2004
Al-Qa'ida started operating out of Iraq overtly only after the US invaded. And yes, they would have found other reasons to kill Americans because America has given developing nations more than enough reason to hate it.


Your first statement is incorrect and I'm surprised you made it. Al Qaeda was operating in Iraq (heck, Al Qaeda was/is operating in the US and Canada as well).

Secondly, I don't agree that the US has given developing reasons legitimate reason to hate it. But I do agree that the hate mongers of the world will always find some excuse to hate the US. Therefore, what is your argument for the US not doing something? I mean, if they're going to hate us anyway, why not just turn the whole region into a sheet of glass and be done with it? We're evil incarnate after all, so why not take the easy way out instead of messing around with building roads and schools and sending food and such?

As for Vietnam, your knowledge of the Vietnam war is so fragmented that it's not worth trying to bring you up to speed.
on May 16, 2004
America still has not given us a clear, concise reason of why it invaded Iraq. WMD - not there. Moral reasons - they've had a whole 13 years - why now? Why not other countries where the justification is just as convincing.

Stability in the Middle East? It is less of a stable place that it was before the invasion. If terroists found it easy to base themselves in a country with a "strong" government, how easy will they find it in a country with no government.

What i meant to say by Al-Qa'ida not operating in Iraq is that they were not antagonistic to the Saddam regeime, hence they had no reason to operate within Iraq. Now they're on the loose and have one more place to make their precense manifest. All the American invasion and occupation has done is to increase their profile and reasons to carry out more atrocities.

In re: to your Vietnam statement - the only reason someone can't be bothered to explain their position or knowledge on a topic is because they have nothing to explain. You don't seem to mind refuting any other of my statements, but on the Vietnam question you refuse. Why is that?

The US assasinated (or backed said assasination) a South Vietnamese leader of their own choosing because they realised he and his government had absolutely no support from his own people.

And what consequence did a communist government in control of Vietnam have on America. None by the look of it, seeing that the communist government did take over and it didn't infringe on America's "freedom" one little bit.

And let me guess, there aren't any hate mongers in the US. Lol. Lots. If the US doesn't hate anyone why do they refuse to stop killing them. Unless, your government is so pathological that it doesn't need hatred to kill people.

The US suffered a civilian casualty list of 3000, and this was enough to invade 2 countries which the US has previously supplied aid to.

The Chileans, after US intervention, suffered 5000 dead.

After US intervention in Guatemala - 200,000 dead with the help of US weapons and training.

70,000 Salvadorans dead with US backing

US provide weapons to Iraq and Iran (Reagan almost impeached) during the Iran-Iraq war - 1 million dead.

Innumerable Palestinian dead with the aid of US weapons and aid.

The world has no reason to mistrust or dislike the US.

No reason at all.
on May 16, 2004
notsohighlyevolved


Do you ever look at things in the proper perspective? I doubt it.......1) with regards to Vietnam, Austraila was more concerned bout a communist takeover than the US...this isnt opinion but fact....as to your comments bout central/south america during the cold war, the times mandated the actions of supporting less than stellar groups...I would argue that during the cold war, those who the US backs were far less murderous bastards than the ones who the Soviet Union did...this again is a fact..not opinion....as to your statement that Austrailia has suffered few if any casualties....this statement segways into the coalition overall as most are not deployed into the sunni triangle.....where as the US is.....fact yet again.....damm those pesky facts....as for the wmd issue...I find the agrument that US "lied" is both hollow and hypocritical....all the major nations, including the axis of weasel ones concluded from their own intelligence that Iraq did indeed have them...now did we find stockpiles yet no..but traffic between Syria and Iraq was heavy befroe the war and if one actually reads Kays statement....he outlines many areas where Iraq was in material breach....most notably a factory for producing the fuel used by scud missles, with recently produced stockpile of said fuel...a prison lab for the testing of chem/bio on prisoners.....missle warheads for use with binary agents, ie vx and sarin.....one would also point out that Iraq had very defined links to terrorism...while some argue the links to al-qaida were only a possibility....PLO, Hamas, Abu Nidal org (which was used repeatedly for political assasinations on behalf of Iraq) Abu Abbas org., etc....the war on terrorism is not limited to al-qaida....but for some reason the useful idiot crowd seems to think it is.....as for the war being bout oil..it was....just ask France, Germany, Russia, China Iraqs 4 biggest suppliers....as well as the UN for without their excellent oversight with food-for-oil, he would never have had the estimated 10 - 15 billion to play with......
on May 16, 2004

I've written several articles why the US went into Iraq.

Here's one concise one: http://draginol.joeuser.com/articlecomments.asp?AID=14756&s=1

 

on May 16, 2004
I never claimed that the war was primarily concerned with oil.

America and Russia are the two biggest stock pilers of Chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

America also has or had very close links to terroists - Osama Bin Laden, the Israeli military, paramilitaries the world over, Saddam, the Shah of Iran etc, etc.

Israel has no qualms at all about announcing to the world and then carrying out political assasinations. All with the backing and aid of the US.

Should another country invade you?

No.

It is your own government that has over and over again accented the radically new nature of security issues related to terrorism. Namely, that terrorism is hard to combat as it is dissassociated from nation states.

How has America been executing its war on terror? By invading nation states.

How this makes sense is beyond me.
on May 16, 2004
Strong words.

I would like to add lots. I had a lot on my mind before I read all of this, but now, I think I will have to go and think seriously about it all.

I think I must remain neutral. Not in the sense that any one of you is right or wrong, because AFAIK, you are all both. I do agree with most of what you all say, I cannot say I disagree with anything in particular... I have to admit, I am confused.

One thing I will add, is that I have seen the Nick Berg video. My heart goes out to the families. Yes, I was appauled, and sickened, but then, its not the first time I have seen someone being murdered in such a way, and its not the most cruel and grotesque death I have seen either... Not by a long way. There are hundreds of such videos out there, and it wont be the last either. It has been given a higher profile, simply because of our current situation, and whether these recent Fake photos had anythign to do with it, I would say that they quite probably were.

The only thing that is starting to dominate my thoughts these days, is the big question.

Is this WW3?

If so, when will it end?

Come to think of it, who actually started it? We can all relate to 9/11 but this is just one in a long, long line of this kind of thing.

I dont know anymore?
on May 16, 2004
FatRakoon,

I see in your words of neutrality not any weakness, but a kind humanism.

I thank you for these words, because its probably people like you who sit on the sidelines watching people like us bitch, who spend the time to think and weigh, who have the ability to influence us one way or the other.

I don't know anymore either, but my personality disallows me to remain silent.

I must say that i have no animosity to anyone who has partaken in this discussion. I respect everyones opinion, but the passion that leads me into arguments is the very thing that allows me to enjoy discussions such as this as much as I do.

Draginol and Couchman, thanks for the parries. Both your contributions are what have made me stick to this discussion for this amount of time.
on May 16, 2004
America also has or had very close links to terroists - Osama Bin Laden, the Israeli military, paramilitaries the world over, Saddam, the Shah of Iran etc, etc.Israel has no qualms at all about announcing to the world and then carrying out political assasinations. All with the backing and aid of the US.


Umm...when did Israel become equated wth terrorists?
on May 17, 2004
Like all classifications of terrorism and terrorists, it depends what side of the fence your sitting on.

An organisation or entity gets classified as terrorist by other organisations or people. Any classification of things or people is by necessity a subjective process. A thing is only a terrorist once you call it one.

As we have seen recently, this can be dangerous. A figurative-linguistic first strike that can only lead to retaliation. A great many of the definitions of terrorism applied to political acts of violence could be attributed to any person or state who has taken up arms for a cause they believe in.

Remember, the British once considered Americans terrorists, but to you guys it was a war of Independence. There is always a very fine, subjective line.

Israel isn't exactly in favour at the moment and it might have a lot to do with the fact that they use Apache helicopters and TOW missles for "targeted assasinations", and use military equipment to demolish whole towns, often killing many innocents as well. I am sure you know that not even the American government will explicitly state and then carry out assasinations.

What makes the actions of the Israelis more abhorant is the fact that it is systematic and government instigated.

Supposedly the people ordering these crimes are not terrorists but politicians, statesmen, diplomats. If people in positions of power and responsibility can do such things, than the line that seperates state and terror might no longer hold.



on May 17, 2004
Hey..heres a thought....if the Palestinians actually want peace....its simple....stop attacking Israelis and Palestinians who are caught in the blast range (one never hears that from the pro-palestinian side, and the dead are included in the overall killed by Israel...for a skewed result.) The PA is a useless PR concerned entity....Arafat has been stealing billions for his own self....has never ceased terrorist activities....but we have to consider him a political leader because he won a nobel prize? please.....I'll take a middle road position on Israeli-Palestine issue when the Palestinians actually have a PA that is more intrested in peace then blatant murder..till then may the missles from the gunships keep firing and killing terrorist leaders who are free game ...period
on May 18, 2004
(SIgh)...And this uncompromizing attitude is a perfect example of why they still fight in the middle-east.
3 Pages1 2 3