On Iraq's body count
I'm sure everyone has seen latest reports about the number of non-combatant violent deaths in Iraq - around 25,000 - since the US-led coalition invaded in March 2003. The coalition forces are responsible for over a third of these deaths, says the report.
The lack of coverage and awareness in North America of these deaths and the relative absence of blame on the United States and its Iraq war allies is one of the reasons of frustration among Muslims and others.
And one of these others is Peter, who in his latest post has some harsh words (by my standards at least) to say about the situation. I'm sure many Muslims would find much common ground with Peter. He writes:
'So close to 25,000 innocent civilians have died in Iraq over the last two years due to western invasion. Would somebody inform me why I am supposed to be upset when 50 people die in the London Tube? Would someone please tell me why those attacks would make me want to support the USA and her allies more? ... Call a spade a spade - the invasion and occupation of Iraq is an extended attempt at retaliation for a few thousand people dying in a highly visible attack on a couple of skyscrapers.
Don't give me your sob stories about London. Don't give me your "We're not Afraid" websites. Don't give me your lies about freedom, peace and democracy. Twenty-Five Thousand people have died because of western arrogance and nobody in the western world seems to care.'
Meanwhile, an American congressman has suggested retaliating, in the event of another terrorist attack against the US, by 'taking out' Islam's holy sites, in particular the Haram el Makki. So much for distinguishing Islam and Muslims from skewed extremist ideologies. When elected representatives say things like this, it's gets harder to argue against a clash of civilizations theory and to respond to those who believe that the United States is out to get Muslims.
It's not just the terrorists in need of enlightenment.
4 comments:
The Republican congressman that you refer to was answering a hypothetical question on what he thinks could be done if Muslim extremists use NUCLEAR weapons against the US. He was indicating that extreme attacts call for extreme counter-attacks because the US is fighting an enemy that doesn't wear a uniform, doesn't have a specific country or stronghold and doesn't operate as a traditional army.
Also, here is something you may want to read. It is a report summing up Saddam's atrocities. Reference Amnesty International and other Human Rights groups. I warn you that it is graphic in its descriptions.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/pdf/strawdossier.pdf
Regardless of the reasons the US and allies gave for this war the reasons in the link should be enough for anyone to realize that a regime change was needed.
Even if there was a nuclear attack by this enemy on the US, how does destroying the holiest of places for one-fifth of the world's people help in eradicating, or even hurting an enemy that, as you said, 'doesn't wear a uniform, doesn't have a specific country or stronghold and doesn't operate as a traditional army'? Does it not instead give a reason, and a valid one, for the entire Muslim world to consider themselves at war with the United States?
As for Iraq, no one is arguing that regime change was needed in Iraq, as is needed in many other countries of the world. The question is whether going to war for regime change was the right thing to do. An overwhelming number of the world's nations, including Canada, think no.
So you agree a regime change is needed but how do you expect it to happen sitting on your hands?
Maybe we should've just asked Saddam real nice if he would leave. Maybe we should said "ah come on, I'll be your friend". Or maybe we could have tried sanctions and trade embargos first. Maybe we could have set up some kind of system where we provide food & aid etc but in return we need to inspect his territory for illegal weapons. And then if he doesn't listen after peace-able means then we'll try harder.
Oh wait, I think that's what happened.
Ali, I think you raise some incredibly important points. Many of your war apologist critics need to take a further step back to consider the implications of blatant soveriegnty violations, especailly in light of the fact that the most powerful nation in the world may not always be a "good guy."
Post a Comment