Why Do They Hate Us? Reason #83: Melanin
Racism
| September 15, 2004
| Tim
The Guardian interviews an apparently bona-fide home-grown Iraqi terrorist who is neither associated with Saddam nor Al Qaeda (though he is being funded by wealth Wahabi Saudis).
According to the left, every terrorist in Iran is supposed to be like this. But the evidence in the article suggests he's instead a rare bird -- the exception, not the rule:
Intelligence experts in Iraq talk of three main types of insurgent. There is the Mahdi Army of Shia Muslims who follow the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and have led recent resistance to coalition forces in northern Baghdad, the central shrine city of Najaf, and Basra, the southern port under British control. There is also 'al-Qaeda' - non-Iraqi militants who have come to Iraq to wage jihad. And finally the 'former regime loyalists', who are said to want the return of Saddam Hussein or, if that is impossible, his Baath party.
Abu Mujahed, worryingly for the analysts, fits into none of these easy categories....
In contrast to many militants, who have killed hundreds of Iraqis in the last year, Abu Mujahed said his group was careful not to kill locals. 'We are now planning to use bigger bombs in central Baghdad. But it is hard because there are so many civilians.' Support for the militants is far from universal. They are not attracting new recruits and finances are tight, he admitted.
So what motivates this guy? He used to like Bon Jovi, but now, since we didn't stop looters (that bothered me too, stupid realpolitiks) he's decided we're out to do him evil. He hates our presence there.
And, apparently even more than that, he hates blacks:
Black soldiers are a particular target. 'To have Negroes occupying us is a particular humiliation,' Abu Mujahed said, echoing the profound racism prevalent in much of the Middle East. 'Sometimes we aborted a mission because there were no Negroes.'
That last phrase was the real, telling jaw-dropper: It's apparently not worth killing white or brown Americans, save the bullets -- that's not really the insult. It's those black Americans who are the real humiliation. What are they doing in our neighborhood?
(And so much for Islam as the answer to anti-black racism, eh?)
Boys and girls, I can understand if people hate us because we're in there. If that sentiment becomes dominant then we should pull out, no question.
But being hated because we allow soldiers of any color to serve in any capacity? That, frankly, is a good reason to be hated, and we shouldn't cater to it there any more than those brave riders did in the south half a lifetime ago.
I wonder how deep that sentiment runs in the mideast. Sounds like it's very deep from what the article mentions. Not that our press ever tells us about it.
UPDATE: After sleeping on it, it occurs to me that this fellow may be lying to us: after all, it was just a tale told to a reporter in a hotel by an unnamed, uncredentialed Iraqi. If so, the purpose would be to convince Americans of a certain idea advantageous to those in the resistence movement.
On one hand, the Guardian tells us his story was corroborated by some unnamed others. Really? Who would be able to corroborate he was working with just a few local people, or that he wasn't recieving detailed instructions from the Saudis funding these activities? How are we to know these people aren't party of the same dog and pony show?
On the other hand, it's deeply suspicious the reporter is told never to try to get in contact with this individual again. First, that seems strange: If a man is willing to discuss his exploits with the press once, why not a second time? Terrorist groups often have rather friendly relations with the press these days. Are they afraid some part of his story will unravel?
Furthermore who are these "handlers" protecting him? If he's an underfunded local, acting under his own direction not from Al Qaeda or the Baathists (etc.), then who are these people surrounding him, sheilding him from further scrutiny, booking his appearance, and then blocking the reporter's future access?
It doesn't make sense: It implies a bigger support network than his story does.
Finally, let's remember that, as in Vietnam, our enemies, and Iraq's, understand there are political dynamics in free societies which are helpful to them, and are not below trying to manipulate those to their favor. As Iraqi blogger Ali from "Iraq the Model" writes:
... The people who support the “resistance” finance it and thus can dictate to a considerable extent its strategy.
There is however another factor *this time* that will have an influence on this from now on. It’s the American’s elections and their effect on the Iraqi issue. I don’t think there are plans for a terrorist attack on America, because they ( the enemies of America’s plans in Iraq) know this will further increase the support for Bush, while killing Iraqis will probably enhance the American support for Iraqis, but killing Americans will promote different emotions and I expect that we’ll see more frequent attacks on Americans in Iraq from now till the election time. This can be seen in today’s attacks for instance, as although there were civilian casualties, it was very obvious that the main target was the American soldiers unlike what happened before when the terrorists openly targeted Iraqis whether in mosques, churches, police stations or training centers for ING.
Most people supporting the resistance think that if Kerry wins he will pull the troops out of Iraq, or that’s what they wish. They know that the decisive factor in this is the American’s casualty, and that shifts their priorities now. They are betting that if they can inflict more losses among American soldiers, American public opinion will favor getting out of Iraq soon and will vote for John Kerry because they (Americans) probably think that too, and that with such public pressure he would find himself more committed to promises he never even made, but gave some impression that he’s at least considering it. The assumption that Americans would pull out of Iraq if they receive heavy casualties is an old one that had stopped looking possible for quite a time, but now with the strong coverage by the media for the losses in Iraq and with the figure 1000 coming up every now and then together with unclear messages from the Kerry camp, the theory has been revived. The bottom line is that with Kerry they think they have a chance but with Bush there is none.
I don’t want to predict anything here but I want to say that if America decided to get out of Iraq before the job is finished, that will be not only disastrous but will be (in my opinion) the worst thing America ever did.
Ali understands that terrorists have political ends, and political ends can seek political support, even if it is done through a body count. It worked in Vietnam, it worked in Spain, and there's no reason not to try to make it work in Iraq.
But the other part of the stategy is the de-moralizing of the war. In Vietnam, this consisted of depicting the Soviet-funded Viet Cong as the "authentic" Vietnamese (and not the many Vietnamese who opposed them!), portraying our cause as crass and immoral in order to build public pressure in the US for their strategic goal of immediate withdrawl.
We can certainly see parallels here, and, as before, Kerry works rather nicely into that strategy for the tyrant wannabees.
Tim,
I am a Muslim, and I don't support Kerry more than Bush. Thing is, America is a super power. It will do whatever super powers do, i.e. to impose their superiority on other nations by any means necessary. A decade ago it was to 'help' them, like in Vietnam, Korea and Kuwait. Right now it's Terrorism.
There are people who make money from this war business. Many of these ppl are very influential in politics. It is their business requirement!! They'll do whatever makes money, on behalf of the lives of many, including their own ppl. Either soldiers or citizens.
Hard reality, but it is what it is.
Btw have you studied rise and fall of Roman Empire? I'm not referring to the name of a book, just that era of history? Their mantra was kinda same, to give a new and better way of life.
Imran,
I respect your blog, and enjoy your comments immensely, even here, though I disagree with you, at least partially, on this particular point.
Thing is, America is a super power. It will do whatever super powers do, i.e. to impose their superiority on other nations by any means necessary. A decade ago it was to 'help' them, like in Vietnam, Korea and Kuwait. Right now it's Terrorism.
Certainly powers come and go, and in the long run, the US will be no exception. And there are many things the US has done which are, quite frankly, not so laudable and there are many actions worth regretting.
And of course there are people who make money from war. Everyone who ever sold a military product, for example. And of course the US works, as every nation or person does, for it's best interest.
But acting in your best interest doesn't necessarily make your actions immoral or wrong. Many things which good for one are also good for many.
But there's a subtext that I think I'm detecting to your statement, something it sounds like you might be implying but not coming out and saying explicitly.
Was this war waged simply to make money? I've considered that theory, and it makes little sense. Certainly, for the US in general, it's been a huge loss. Had it been done for profit, there was no reason to return control of the oil back to the Iraqis.
Nor is Halliburton -- another alleged source of motive -- doing well. They're worth about half what they were under Clinton, and they're even considering selling off (as unprofitable) KBR, the division handling the Iraq stuff.
So I keep hearing about the alleged profit motive, but most the people offering the idea can't even come up with a consistent theory as to how the profit is being made, and who's allegedly benefiting. It's like saying a murder has been committed, but being unable to name a murderer, produce the body, the weapon, or the motive.
Nor does it makes sense to argue that Bush moved into Iraq for political gain. Even before going in, it was obvious this was controversial. Far from cementing his power, if Bush loses, Iraq will probably be the biggest reason, and he certainly understood that risk.
This is not the behavior of a man who is acting to put a few dollars in his pocket, or accumulate political power.
I think a far simpler motive applies: The desire to cut off those who support terrorists. Perhaps that's too obvious, but it's the only theory which matches well with the data.
Next, does the US use "any means necessary"? Oh please. I'm more than willing to point out the US makes all kinds of stupid moves. But "any means necessary"? Do you think if the US used "any means necessary" that we'd still be talking with Iran about it's desire to develop nuclear weapons? Or that we would have just talked with Kim Jong Il about the same topic under Clinton? Would Castro still be alive now that his support, the USSR, is gone? Do you even think Canada would have much better fishing rights? Or that Canada would be one of the US's greatest critics? Goodness, they'd be another state by now.
Instead, there are limits and there are boundaries, and they are and have historically been largely self-imposed. Contrast the behavior of Woodrow Wilson (who didn't respect such boundaries) with a guy like Calvin Coolege. Or even Bush.
Or, if those examples aren't familliar with you, contrast the way the USSR did business with that of the US. Look at the freedom and autonomy of France, West Germany, Japan or South Korea as opposed to, say, Poland or Hungary.
The difference in each case is remarkable. That difference is based on character and restraint. Not inability or external limits.
It's interesting that you bring up Korea and Vietnam. The alleged "overt" motive was to check the spread of communism: a ruthless system which killed over a hundred million people, consumed countries and freedoms, and threated our own freedoms here as well.
You think that instead those were for a "profit" too? Really? What on earth interest was there in Vietnam? Oil? Heh! Certain spices? Rice? Sampans? Poultry? If munitions manufacturers wanted to be rich and were controlling the government it would have been simpler just to fund lots of development of new weapons.
So Lyndon Johnson risked his very presidency and legacy to help a few companies sell a few more bullets and napalm?
Yes, that makes as much sense as the current argument from profit.
Look, I've tried repeatedly to understand the world from this point of view. It's not that I'm inherantly antagonistic to the analysis, it's just that, speaking as honestly as possible, it doesn't make sense to me, nor can I seem to get it to do so.
Btw have you studied rise and fall of Roman Empire? I'm not referring to the name of a book, just that era of history? Their mantra was kinda same, to give a new and better way of life.
What, are you kidding? Rome wasn't even a democracy. What makes you think they needed a "motto" or "mantra" to sell the idea of going to war? Such things are only needed in democracies, it's odd to see you speak as though that was how Rome operated.
And, no offense, but you and I don't seem to understand Roman history the same way.
Imran, do you understand how the Pax Romana worked? (You know the term, right?) They didn't invade and conquer to give a "new and better way of life" -- where on earth did you get such an idea? (I mean that seriously: cite sources.)
Instead, invasions were for a number of reasons, including for plunder and also for generals (and emporeurs) to pursue glory. (Look here if you think I'm pulling your leg, for example.) If you think they invaded to give people a "new and better way of life" it sounds to me like you're unfamilliar with even the basics.
When Rome invaded a country, their main goal was not to change the way it operated. They didn't attempt to change, in any deep way, it's culture, religion, law, customs, local government form, or gods. Even the local leaders were left in place, provided they could do a decent job of keeping the peace. (In fact, frequently, the influence went the other way 'round, with Romans adopting new habits and even religions from countries they invaded.)
A better example for your argument would have been Alexander the Great, with his program of Hellenization. To me, it appears you have missed an obvious historical example, and instead picked one which doesn't even conform to your thesis.
I grant that at least one of us could use to learn more history. I certainly could -- I'm certainly no historian.
But I do try to be reasonably well-read. On Rome, I've read Jospephus, Tertullian, many biographies of the caesars, plenty of discussions of how Rome interacted with local governments, and countless translated bits of grafitti. On Vietnam, I've read a few books (and am reading one now), and been fortunate enough to learn the subject directly from Senator Thomas Eagleton, who was a ranking Senate member during the war and ran in the Democratic primaries against Nixon in '72.
If you have better information, which refutes what I'm saying here, feel free to share it. I'm always willing to learn more, and I'll grant you a point if you can make it fairly.
Thanks!
- Tim
Tim, thanks for the imformative reply. You don't know but you did answer so many questions of mine that I've been asking to so many ppl. But you did trigger some other questions:
If ppl lost money in Iraq, means F911 is wrong, which said ppl made money, and all the contracts corps got.
Roman History source: Ben Hur. A roman villian said it to Ben Hur. Such an authentic source eh!
Ah! Hah, well that makes sense of things.
Imran, the "right" (conservatives) in America sure aren't always correct. They're any number of areas in which these people (including myself, as a mostly-conservative) can be wrong.
But when it comes to nutball theories, Michael Moore takes the cake. But he is an excellent salesman. (Quixtar would love him!)
I read a few chapters of his book "Dude, Where's My Country?", some parts of which made it into F9/11. He claimed, for example, that the only way that the 9/11 hijackers could have survived in the US, undetected, for several years were if they were secret Saudi agents and soldiers.
When I read this, I burst out laughing.
Literally millions of people of are pouring into the US across the southern border, and living here for their whole lives. "Surviving" in the US, undetected by the toothless, grossly understaffed INS, doesn't exactly require the skills of a trained soldier.
But in Moore's mind, that was a key piece of evidence showing that Bush somehow arranged 9/11. Oh dear.
Bush could lose the election in just a month, be completely out of power, with Kerry -- the candidate Moore supports -- in his place, and where's the Afghan pipeline? How come the oil contracts aren't safely in the hands of his cronies already?
For a corrupt official, he's a pretty stupid one! :-)
Of course, as I said, some people will make a profit from this war. No matter what happens, some people make a profit. And yes, Halliburton has done some business and made a bit of money. But check out their stock quote -- not too impressive.
That peak you see is the Kosovo war under Clinton -- stock worth near $60/share. Bush took office in 2001 -- watch the stock plunge. And those deep depressions are where the war started.
Now the stock value is about $34. Before Bush took office it was running about $45/share. In other words, I'd guess it's lost about 25% of it's value under Bush.
Where are the stock splits? The dividends?
Look, that's not my theory. That's Yahoo's stock ticker. That's as non-partisan as it gets.
Of course, that's a silly theory anyway: Cheney long ago divested himself from his Halliburton stock. And he still receives a trickle of "deferred compensation" -- money he earned long ago by wants paid in smaller chunks for tax reasons -- but it's not a variable sum, linked to performance. It's the same amount no matter what happens.
In the same article linked above, you'll also see that Cheney has assigned any future money he might ever possibly make from Halliburton to charity. That's several million dollars (about $7.8 million today, probably much more back then) of stock that Dick Cheney simply gave up to become Vice President.
Explain again the profit motive?
(Kerry's tax form said he donated $400 to charity.)
Not everything Moore says is false -- a good lie has a lot of truth in it. Sometimes he only tells you half the picture. Sometimes he leaves out important facts. I was a fan of his once, and only recently did I realize how he misled me in even his first film.
Here's Christopher Hitchens' take on F9/11. Christopher is an Englishman, is basicly a leftist, and dislikes Bush, so you can be sure he's not shilling for the administration. And here's a more detailed debunking of F9/11, and here's a short response from the Republicans telling their side of things.
Hope that helps to provide another perspective to consider.
Take care!
Tim, thanks again. I just want to clarify one thing. When I ask about some American policy (Yes I do have some big problems with some American policies, NOT American public) I do not take liberal's side.
To be clearer, I am not a big fan of Kerry, or Clinton. Never was. And I don't criticize G. W. Bush because he is republican. I questioned American policy as American policies, formulated by right or left, doesn't matter (to me).
If Mr. Moore lied, why he has not been sued or anything? If he lied, he should have been punished. These are the sensitive matters and one better not lie about them on media. I saw a site which debunks the debunking of moore. I am searching for it, can't figure out the keywords for it.
Anyways, when is a new post on Quixtar is comming? Can't wait ;-)
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Jonah Goldberg Sums It Up |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Rathergate: Beldar's About-Face »
|
Tim,
I am a Muslim, and I don't support Kerry more than Bush. Thing is, America is a super power. It will do whatever super powers do, i.e. to impose their superiority on other nations by any means necessary. A decade ago it was to 'help' them, like in Vietnam, Korea and Kuwait. Right now it's Terrorism.
There are people who make money from this war business. Many of these ppl are very influential in politics. It is their business requirement!! They'll do whatever makes money, on behalf of the lives of many, including their own ppl. Either soldiers or citizens.
Hard reality, but it is what it is.
Btw have you studied rise and fall of Roman Empire? I'm not referring to the name of a book, just that era of history? Their mantra was kinda same, to give a new and better way of life.
Posted by: Imran Aziz on October 11, 2004 09:35 PM