Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Yes, we are angry

The execution of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein really should not have surprised anybody but the most deluded souls. Many of those people believed that the US might hand back to country to Saddam, in hopes of reversing the mess that was created as a result of the invasion.

On the other hand, most people saw the whole charade as an insult. The Eid timing and the obvious sectarian feel of the execution were only part of the story. The farcical trials that preceded the execution are only part of the story. The oblivious (non) reactions of the Arab regimes were only part of the story. The fact that the Iranian puppet regime installed by the US, and not a sovereign Iraqi government conducted the execution is only part of the story. The televising of the event was only part of the story. How different is it from Zarqawi beheading a hapless victim for a world audience?

All of these details are really technicalities as to why people in Jordan are angry. It is not because Saddam gave them money, as Shaker Nabulsi tritely tries to explain the phenomenon. It is not because they approve of (or even believe that he committed) the atrocities attributed to him. It is not because they think that invading Kuwait was a good idea. Why, aside from all of these explanations, are people really so angry about this?

Saddam is viewed as a man who believed in the Arab nation. Under his rule, he had a strong, capable army. There was security and a modern state with lots of potential. He built an excellent scientific base, universities, infrastructure. Electricity worked. Iranian meddling in the country and in the region was under check (thanks to a brutal war). Generally, he is a man who is viewed as having worked for the betterment of his country and his nation, and who was not a traitor.

The justification that Saddam was a brutal tyrant rings hollow. There are many brutal tyrants around. He was a brutal tyrant who had the nuts to say NO, and to act on his convictions.

That, my friends, is why Jordanians are angry.


At 11:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just Thank You.

At 9:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you did not see the real movie, see it:

download it from :

and then play games to forget the sadness here:

At 11:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You were right in every word you've said ....

BTW ... Shaker Nabulsi is Just another American mercenary ... no need to expose him further .. he just doesn't wroth that much ...

Thank you ... and God helps all for what is about to come ...

At 4:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I usually refute most of Mr. Nabulsi's articles by sending readers response to Elaph news paper editor, some times my responses slip through the cracks and get published but more often than not they get ignored particularly when I respond to him about his articles attacking Jordan & the Jordanian people. He simply do too much generalizations in his attack against Jordan and the Jordanian people.

At 5:48 PM, Blogger Khalaf said...

Anon: You are welcome.

Arab: Take care.

Fresto: Welcome to my blog. In Arabic we say that he who has a bump on his head keeps feeling it (meaning guilty people accuse others of their own crimes). He is accusing people of being bribed. I wonder who is paying him?

Hatem: Nobody can bribe the whole population of a country. The whole premise is just stupid.

At 7:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Question - How does "a man who believed in the Arab nation" and "viewed as having worked for the betterment of his country and his nation, and who was not a traitor", invade a neighboring Arab country??

At 8:00 PM, Blogger Khalaf said...

This is a simple question. He beleived that Kuwait was unjustly cut away from Iraq by foreign colonial powers. I don't see this as being inconsistent.

This is not to say that I or most people agree that occupying Kuwait was a right thing to do, as I said in the post.

At 9:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hatem: Nobody can bribe the whole population of a country. The whole premise is just stupid.

And yet, you think 80% of Iraqis do America's bidding... the Iraqi Kurds and the Iraqi Shia. The US controls them. The only Iraqis the US doesn't control are the 20% Sunni arabs.

The whole premise is just stupid :P

PS-I do hope that it's America's turn to be responsible for what Iraqi Shia do and not Iran's turn. I get this alternating blame thing mixed up once in a while.

At 9:58 PM, Blogger Khalaf said...

Come on Craig. The US rushed in to create "a new Iraq" that would be a "beacon of democracy". Now, this "new Iraq" makes a mockery of rule of law, human rights, freedom of religion, and any other hyped up slogan you can think of. US's response? Shruggs shoulders and pretends that they have nothing to do with anything.

If the US is so impotent in Iraq, why don't they leave? What purpose does US presence serve?

At 10:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Saddam's reason for invading Kuwait was actually that he believed the Kuwaitis were draining away some of his oil supplies through directional drilling of Iraqi reservoirs (the excuse that he believed Kuwait should be part of Iraq, was an afterthought that he believed would gain him popularity... which it apparently did). Anyway, he went into Kuwait with the belief that the U.S would back him the way they did with Iran, hence why he was disinclined to engage in serious peaceful dialogue to resolve the issue.

So his reasons for invading Kuwait had nothing to do with Arab unity, or love for preserving the Arab nation, his reasons were purely economic - and they were legitimate reasons, had it turned out to be true. However, the complacency, arrogance, and quite honestly complete stupidity he showed in resolving the issue was not legitimate since the end result of his invasion was an extremely heavy American military presence in the entire Gulf, who needed to be "protected" from Iraq.

Now, is that the type of foresight a wise and great leader has??

At 10:40 PM, Blogger Khalaf said...

Well, the threat of Saddam is gone. Can the US leave now?

I never said "wise" nor "great". Please don't mischaracterise what I said.

At 11:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


If the US is so impotent in Iraq, why don't they leave? What purpose does US presence serve?

I've been calling for the US to withdraw from Iraq for about a year. A little more, actually. Ever since it became obvious to me that the US didn't intend to do anything to curb the shia militias. The shia do not need American help to take over Iraq, and it's immoral for the US to be silently siding with the Shia, even if it's only through American inaction. That's my take on it, anyway. And if the real reason the US is still in Iraq is because of Iran, then I think that's immoral too. If the US has to do something about Iran (and I think it does) then we should take the problem into Iran, where it belongs.

I'm no fan of what the neocons have been doing. It just think it's stupid at this point in time to pretend America is orchestrating all the chaos in Iraq, or responsible for it either.

At 1:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course the Americans aren't going to leave, there's a new threat now called Iran! The bases are there on a pretty much permanent base, or as long as the Americans (note the Americans not the Gulf Arabs) feel that they need to be there.

In any case, that's not my point, my point is by invading Kuwait, Saddam gave the Americans a free pass into the region. He acted in a foolish and arrogant manner, and now everyone is paying and will be paying the price for a long time.

At 9:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course the Americans aren't going to leave, there's a new threat now called Iran!

And what good does it do America to be bogged down in Iraq, when the problem is in Iran? You are aware that our involvement in Iraq is being used as the primary excuse not to take action against Iran, right?

Iraq was never a threat to the US, and we didn't invade Iraq just for fun, as you seem to believe, Rihab. The neocons actually believed they could make Iraq a better place, and that democracy in Iraq would change societies all over the ME. They were wrong. It's time to fix what we can and leave. We have other things we need to be doing. I really can't understand people who believe the US *wants* to be in Iraq. For what possible reason? We can buy oil from anybody, it doesn't matter to US who runs the government in Iraq, man. We buy oil from some of the most disgusting human beings on teh planet. Who are the Iraqis going to put in power who is worse than the fat ass bastards who are sitting on the world's oil supply now?

This kind of theory is just not logical.

At 12:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Craig:Keeping Euro-asia, China,and russia at bay.Also, iSRAEL'S interests are with a crumbled down factionized eastern borders. Arnt those enough reasons for the neo cons??

At 7:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't see any reasons there, anonymous.

Keeping Euro-asia, China,and russia at bay

We aren't keeping any of those factions "at bay" by being in Iraq. They are very happy seeing us paralyzed into inaction with all the chaos in Iraq. Is there some reason you say otherwise?

Also, iSRAEL'S interests are with a crumbled down factionized eastern borders.

Well, I don't claim to be an expert on Israel's national interests, but in what way exactly is Israel better off with America in Iraq than it was before the US invaded?

At 7:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

See this new movie

it is barbarian !


Post a Comment

<< Home