Complicity in Silence

romair # 36 - Your post is so well written, so clear, and so sensible that nothing more is needed to add to it.

Indeed, as Saddam learned, as Aristide learned, as Noriega of Panama learned, that being a whore of West does not give you any life long guarantees, the Uncle Tom`s and `Brown sahibs` in West will learn that lesson too.

Intriguing as it may sound, Ahmad Chalabi seems to be on track to learn this lesson soon.

malik #43 I in fact wrote a whole article on chowk before the Iraq war, supporting it. And the reasons were as follows:

a. at a minimum, Iraq would be rid of a murderous half-brained dictator who had led it from one war to another, killed thousands of minorities, killed even his own sons-in-law.
Result: Done.

b. The US has made historic contributions to the spread of democracy around the world - the French Revolution was inspired by it. US occupation of Germany and Japan introduced democracy in those two countries (the brief Weimer regime of the 1920`s was too brief and shaky and soon overridden by Nazis and so represented at best a false start in democracy in Germany). The Chinese Democracy movement was directly inspired by the US: the demonstrators even made a large replica of the statue of liberty. And the US sees its future not in territorial expansion, but in things most pakistanis never think about - space exploration, scientific advancements, medical breakthrouhs, nanotechnologies, even traversing dimensions (with a 3-4 billion dollar project for a huge particle accelerator being proposed nowadays) and so on. OF COURSE, the influence of such a dynamic country that has been at the forefront of human bondage to kings has every reason to be a positive influence on Iraq.
Result: Too early to tell. If a far-sighted statesman like Adenauer emerges in Iraq (as happened in Germany after WWII), Iraq will fully benefit in the years ahead from US involvement. If instead a bunch of greedy, short-sighted individuals come up, Iraq will not fully benefit. But it will still be better off I bet than under Hussein.

Did someone blow it in Abu Ghraib? of course. But the US will recover from it, unlike Pakistan from 1971 (per my post to inquirer).

I have made my views clear, and you can accept them or reject them. However, I am not getting into any arguments on this.

#18 by malik99

“HP # 14 - You wrote ``No Islamic leader or country has so far come forward to apologize to the people of the US.``

This statement is too retarded and obscene to merit a response.”

I agree with you truth is always retarded and obscene. That is the beauty of the truth. It is also bitter.
I tried but I could not find any info or a link or some thing to live by that would show Muslims leaders apologizing for 911. Again condemnation is not an apology.
Blowing hot air 24 hours a day and blaming the US ALONE would not move people forward towards the resolution of this issue. Every body needs to be responsible to clear out this mess and that includes the US too.

#35 by Romair

“Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran Malaysia, Bangladesh etc. did not order the attacks on WTC, nor did their govt. support them.”

Nice try! So you preempt me. Still, these are the principle Muslims country. Yes! on technicalities they have no compulsion to apologize. But this issue has moved beyond technicalities now. Moral high ground is not a mere detail. This whole saga is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

“And what exactly does an apology mean? All these apologies are carried out for political purposes. If the opinion polls indicate that Bush has more chance of getting elected, if he fires Rumsfeld, he will fire him. If they don`t he will keep hiim in place.”

Apology means a whole lot to lots of people. The catholic church also could have hidden behind “We did not do it” our predecessors did it some centuries ago. All the people that perpetrated atrocities and the people who were humiliated in the name of the church died some centuries ago. But the church still apologized. I am not a scholar of Islam but the prophet on several occasions talked about apology more than the revenge. An apology shows remorse and it is an attempt to connect with the victim on a human level. On personal level what would you rather do, apologize or kill somebody if you have somehow annoyed somebody? Now I don’t have to go in the moral values of the saying sorry. You are a grown up man & know this way more than I do.

You are saying that Bush and the US senate apologized because of polls, but if they did because of polls alone, does it not show the high moral standards American people hold their govt and representatives to force an apology- a reluctant apology in your opinion- but still on the insistence of Americans.

Why Muslims all over the world would not agree to apologize. The principal Muslim countries may not have any role in 911. But most of the hijackers were from some Arab countries and why is it so hard for the King of Saudi Arabia, President of Syria or Egypt to say sorry on behalf of their misguided or extremists citizens? Nobody would blame them for the 911, if they apologize for some of their citizens.

I have been visiting different discussion boards in the US. Left, liberals, rightwing, republicans and rightwing extremists and on ALL boards, a majority of Americans is showing remorse on what happened at abu ghraib.

It is just not a matter of some legal mumbo-jumbo. it is a matter of simple decency. Of values that we hold dear and one value is to feel and show that you are sorry even if the act was perpetrated by a misguided member of your family.

hassansiddiqi #42: The reaction to such atrocities cannot be judged by how many people do not support them. It is nearly impossible for anyone to support such atrocities (though Rush Limbaugh does have a gigantic following, so may be I am speaking too early). One would have to be inhuman to support such atrocities. Specially against individuals who have done nothing to you. The Iraqis in the prison have done nothing to the USA. They are not a part of Al-Qaeda. In fact, the USA has now let go so many of them, indicating they shouldn`t have been in jail to begin with. According to the Human Rights organizations, an overwhelming amount of the prisoners, are innocent.

The reaction to such atrocities has to be judged by how much opposition there is to them, and to the occupation as a whole (without which there would be no such cases). Presidents, in countries like USA, make their decisions on public opinion polls. Their aim is to get re-elected. Bush has not fired a single individual, for anything related to Iraq. Had he felt public opinion was strong against such atrocities, he would dropped Rumsfeld, and anyone else, in a heartbeat. They are all expendable, for a Republican re-election. The fact that Bush has called him a great Defence Secretary - the best ever (through Cheney, who himself was one) indicates that he has judged the mood of the public opinion polls, i.e. Americans would rather have not had the atrocities occur, but ho-hum- doesn`t mean much should change.

Compare this to the reaction against Senate Majority leader Trent Lott, and his comments in support of Storm Thurmond. Senate Majority leader is much more influential and powerful position, than an unelected Defence Secretary. It is the third most powerful position in the country. Lott made a casual comment about Thurmond`s historical policies, related to Blacks, and lost his job. Why? Because he had become a political weight around Bush after the comment. That comment was chickenfeed in comparison to what has happened on Rumsfeld`s watch, in Iraq. Imagine if attack dogs were being let lose against Black and Jewish inmates in US military prisons, inside the USA. And if they were stripped naked and piled into a pyramid. Do you think Rumsfeld and others would have been out the door? Of course. In a heartbeat. Because the US public would not accept a simple apology, with no action. The ACLU and AIPAC would drag down the whole Bush govt. if it did not fire someone.

All these apologies are thus based on what the public wants. If Bush fires Rumsfeld, it is quite possible, his voters (Rush included) may actually turn against him. Bush recently authroized Sharon`s atrocious plans in Israel. Why? Not due to any moral reason. But because he wants to increase the Jewish vote for Republicans from 1/3rd to at least 1/2. He is suggesting furthur sanctions against Cuba, for democracy. What happened all of a sudden? A moral enlightenement on part of Bush. No. He knows that Florida is going to be a deciding state in the election. And he wants to get the Cuban-American vote there, which is very anti-Castro.

So one should not read into apologies too much. Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld had the report, about the atrocities, sitting on their desks in January. Had they really been concerned, they would have apologized then. Rumsfeld excuse was that he could not visualize the graphics through text. Yeah, sure.

Similarly, the Democrats are, ``drilling`` Rumsfeld, because they want to get re-elected. It is in their interest to make the Republicans look bad in Iraq. But do keep in mind, that nearly every Democrat, including Kerry and Edwards, voted (yes voted) in favor of the invasion. They only turned against it, when it made political sense to do so, after the Iraqis started kicking the US out. It was not a moral decision. It was a political one.

If the American opinion was to feel good, and not to feel sorry, even after seeing these pictures, then I am afraid they Americans would have ceased to be human. I am not sure anyone deserves credit for simply that........Do keep in mind that the Iraqis in all these pictures, and as a nation combined, have never killed a single American, and have never lauched a single bullet in the USA. Yet over the past twenty-five years, the USA has supported Saddam as he killed them. Attacked and completely destroyed their country during the first Gulf War. Sanctioned them, thereby killing upto 1 million of them, and has now occupied them, and humiliated them........All with the support of its public....

Saying a few words of apology, and that too after the scandal got out of political control, is like OBL apologzing to New Yorkers for breaking a window, after having attacked the WTC..........

tainted #41 you write `` In the same way that there can be no justification for whatever happened in 1971, there can be none for the US Armed Forces now. ``

There is a difference between bangladesh 1971 and Iraq 2003:

1. Not one man has yet been charged in Pakistan to this day, 32 years later. In the US, the first trial starts next week.

And this will be an open trial with the press present. in iraq. and before anyone rushes to call it a show trial - 3 others have already been charged. and this is just the start. the entire nation - including arch conservative columnists like George Will and Robert Novak - is calling for Rumsfelds resignation. There is a national outrage of a kind that never took place in Pakistan after 1971.

2. In pakistan, the Hamoodurrehman report - which chronicled alleged crimes - has yet to be made public, 32 years later. In the US, its equivalent - the Gen. Taguba report was made public, and Gen Taguba himself openly questioned in the Congress before cnn cameras.


you also write ``But did you or your father ever call for accountability publicly?``

I in fact raised this point, and provided answered clearly in my post. I have no need to prove anything on chowk.

``Human beings when pushed to commit atrocities become degenerate and loose their humanity.``

Very true! And it is true not only of the US army in Iraq but equally true of any forces where soldiers find it hard to tell an enemy from a friend.

``Ours is the crime of silence and apathy, towards issues that require our voices.``

Yes, but I would include in it the silence towards human rights abuses by despotic regimes in the middle east or issues where certain countries confiscate bible before you enter their country?

Wajahat,

Let me categorically state this - I am against this occupation. I don`t think it was done for the right reasons. However, I am happy to see Saddam leave. The Bush government should not have occupied Iraq in the first place and now they are in deep trouble.

Second, the purpose of my previous message was not to support the US administration for what it is doing in Iraq. It was to say that the Iraq atrocities are NOT being supported by the people and the politicians.

Sure the Secretary of Defense wanted to cover it up. Sure the Secretary of Defense didnot want the media to show those pictures. However, an independent media and a democratic system of government ensured that those who did wrong were brought to justice. The Bush administration stands guilty of these atrocities.

So my support is not towards the government that occupied Iraq, my emphasis is on the fact that Syed Ali should not generalize the notion that American people and American politicians in general support these atrocities. The fact that Rumsfeld was grilled in the Senate hearings and made to fess up every thing that happened, is proof that politicians and the media are independent and do not reflect the notion that they support these atrocities.

Remember: I donot support the occupation. I support democracy and independence which is reflected by the confessions and outrage of the public, the media and the politicians over the atrocities in Iraq.

tahmed32 - I had asked you in my previous board when you are going to Iraq now that the war you so propagated has gone wrong and your country needs you. Your response, predictably from ball-less war mongers like you consisted of hyperboles, intellectual droppings, and blabbering non-sense.

So let me state for this board here:

TAHMED32 is nothing more than a mass of hot air. All these months we have seen him typing away his blabber talk on various boards propagating `liberation` of Iraq. Now he is not willing to be a stockholder in the devastating consequences of the aftermath of war.

NOW is the time for action on his part. NOW is the time for him to WALK the walk. But our esteemed tahmed32 is quietly sneaking out :)

Is ``credibility`` a trait men die to have? Apparently not !

malik: I had asked you a simple, one line question (whether the beheading was justified) and you failed to respond in an honest manner (to put it bluntly, given that you ignored the point when I put it less bluntly before). That is: you said the answer was NO, and then proceeded to negate what you said by trying to provide an ``explanation``.

I will be glad to discuss anything with anyone on chowk (within time constraints). But only if the discussion is honest and rational. When you are able to do that, then we can talk. Till then, you can rant as much as you like - I am not going to waste time trying to have a reasonable discussion.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

But did you or your father ever call for accountability publicly? We can protest against anything and everything and take stands in private conversations at private gatherings, but to say it out loud? Ha. Comparing the East Pakistan debacle with the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan is a sad way of supporting your argument. In the same way that there can be no justification for whatever happened in 1971, there can be none for the US Armed Forces now.

``And that is all I am saying - we need as a first step to judge ourselves by certain moral standards, and not simply point fingers at others or set up a smoke screen of generalities and rhetoric``

- but does that mean that we turn a blind eye to whatever happens in the rest of the world?

I think there are certain questions that need to be asked about the prisoner abuse in Iraq, that are not being asked:

Amongst the forefront of this has to be, whether the US society has been so brainwashed about Arabs, as an ethnicity, and perhaps Muslims as faith, that they have developed racist tendencies. To check racism, one has to concentrate on how the lower echelons of the society are treated. An Arab who sits as a CEO of an organization, may not face racism, but does an Arab who sits at the bottom, face it?

For starters, we need to ask whether the reaction of the US govt. been different had the prisoners been Jewish. If US soldiers were letting attack dogs lose on Jewish prisoners and dragging them on a leash, would Rumsfeld have resigned, and would Bush have plummeted in the polls? Would there have been practical actions, or a mere apology? Would the action have been taken, when the report arrived on Rumsfeld`s desk, or only after, the pictures were leaked, and there was no other option left? Would Bush have distanced himself from Rumsfeld or brought him even closer? And most of all, would poeple like Rush Limbaugh have been able to portray the mindset of 20 million people in his comments? Or would they have lost their audience, or been fired? He was, after all, fired from ESPN on making a simple remark stating that a quarterback was being ranked too high by the press becasuse he was Black.

Would Rush still have a following of 20 million, if we add the term, ``Jewish`` to his comments:

``All right, so we`re at war with these people. And they`re in a prison where they`re being softened up for interrogation. And we hear that the most humiliating thing you can do is make one JEWISH male disrobe in front of another. Sounds to me like it`s pretty thoughtful. Sounds to me in the context of war this is pretty good intimidation -- and especially if you put a woman in front of them and then spread those pictures around the JEWISH world. And we`re sitting here, `Oh my God, JEWS`re gonna hate us! Oh no! What are JEWS gonna think of us?` I think maybe the other perspective needs to be at least considered. Maybe JEWS`re gonna think we are serious. Maybe JEWS`re gonna think we mean it this time. Maybe JEWS`re gonna think we`re not gonna kowtow to JEWS. Maybe the people who ordered this are pretty smart. Maybe the people who executed this pulled off a brilliant maneuver.``

Obviously, Limbaugh, nor anyone else, couldn`t dare make such statement about Jews. And Rumsfeld would have been out the door, along with his whole hierarachy, had Jews been dragged around on a lease. Or Blacks, or Catholics, or Europeans. And Bush`s ratings would have plummeted. Not remained exactly where they were before the photos came out.

There is an eerie amount of racism against Arabs and Muslims that has crept into the American psyche. One could understand if it was just against Al-Qeada. But it is against a whole religion and ethnicity. That is why they are so quick to support any attack on Arabs, without asking for much justification. And are least bothered by any justification, even now. Luckily, this is limited to Americans, and other goras like Canadians, Germans etc. are not participating in it. On the contrary, they are starting to dislike the Americans for it.

Any Arab or Muslim (or anyone who looks like them, like Hindus) in the USA who supports this war is actually shooting him/herself in the foot. In may pay to be holier than the pope, in the short term. But in the long run, when the govt. come for such Uncle Toms, no one will be there to speak for them, if they don`t speak up for others, right now. They would be well-advised to not encourage such US adventures, for their own sakes, even if they are not concerned about the human rights of Iraqis.

Because if another attack occurs in the USA (which it inevitably will, according to the FBI), then the Americans are not going to differentiate between individuals like hamidm (who feels sorry for Rumsfeld), ZahraJ (who wants American soldiers in Pakistan, to fix Pakistan), tahamad (who is still trying to find ways to justify everything the USA is doing in Iraq) and any Joe Abdul who looks Arab or Muslim. They will treat them all alike:

``First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

HP #14: ``The US govt. has come forward to apologize to Iraqi people about what happened in Abu Ghraib, some countries from the the Islamic world at this time should come forward and apologize for the atrocities of some of their citizen on 911. No Ihe Islamic leader or country has so far come forward to apologize to the people of the US.``

This is an incorrect comparison.

The WTC attacks were carried out by an organization representing no country. USA`s attacks on Iraq were carried out by the govt. of a country, with the popular support of all its people. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran Malaysia, Bangladesh etc. did not order the attacks on WTC, nor did their govt. support them. I am surprised you cannot see the difference. Why should any leader apologize to the USA for something that his govt. had nothing to do with, nor supported?

Should every Christian apologize to every Muslim for what the USA is doing in Iraq? No. Only the govt. of the country carrying it out should apologize.

And what exactly does an apology mean? All these apologies are carried out for political purposes. If the opinion polls indicate that Bush has more chance of getting elected, if he fires Rumsfeld, he will fire him. If they don`t he will keep hiim in place.

Not a single person in the USA top administration has been fired for any of the atrocities in Iraq, including the invasion itself. No one has apologized for the 10 to 15 thousand Iraqis who were killed by the Americans. Adjusted for population, this is equivalent to 150,000 Americans killed. That is 45 times the total number of Americans killed in WTC. The American govt. isn`t even keeping count of the people it has killed in Iraq. While it keeps count of every dollar that is spent there, and every screw that is a spare part on a machine gun.

OBLs followers should apologize to the USA for WTC. No one else has any obligation to apologize. And the Americans should apologize to the Iraqis for the Iraqi invasion. No other Western nation (other than UK) or Chrstian needs to apologize. However, I doubt, either the OBLs or the Americans are going to apologize for each others` attacks.

In addition, nearly all the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. And Saudis are hand in hand with the Americans, specifically with the Bush family. Airplanes flew out the Bin Laden family, specifically at the orders of George Bush, after 9/11, from the USA.

One of the major sources of propoganda has been the use of the tapes that saddam`s henchman recorded during their cruel beatings in abu ghraib, proving to us how evil his ways were. Now we are shown images and videos, far more sadomasochist and sexually motivated than the ones from the saddam era. This is a purely American deed, which the average Joe and Jane are committing. In Algeria, during the french occupation, wives of freedom fighter captured were raped not by men but by the Dogs, and this was done in front of their families. America has in its desperation unleashed the kind of extreme abuse that only extreme hate can perpetrate.

But there are many amongst us who still keep on denying the extremity, wrongness and wretchedness of this invasion.