December 30, 2005


Palestinians in Iraq Pay the Cost of Being 'Saddam's People' (Doug Struck, December 30, 2005, Washington Post)

For years, Saddam Hussein harbored a small population of Palestinians in Iraq, trotting them out to cheer whenever he went to war -- which he routinely justified as essential to Arab nationalism and the Palestinian cause.

Don't they know we're all supposed to pretend that Saddam had no ties to terrorism nor interests beyond his borders?

Posted by Orrin Judd at December 30, 2005 12:31 PM

Well, as long as they were secular Palestinians. If they were Islamist, then they'd really really have to be ignored.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at December 30, 2005 12:42 PM

Note that Old Media presumes that these Palestinians shouldn't be held accountable for direct association with a brutal dictator, but if Vice President Cheney once met with a friend of a cousin of some oil company, he's GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY!

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at December 30, 2005 1:36 PM

The people who need convincing don't think Palestinians are terrorist

Posted by: Rick T. at December 30, 2005 8:23 PM

Did Saddam ever have ties to terrorists that attacked thr US? Or just the illegitimate authority of Israel?

Cheney's guilty of a lot more than meeting with the cousin of an oil company. If you want, I could go into more detail (please ask me to).

Could the initiators of the American Revolutionary War conceivably be called terrorists? Could many of the various right-wing groups supported by the US be called terrorists?

Alright I know I've already bored you guys, but instead of insulting me, could someone please give me a respectful answer?

Posted by: Grog at December 31, 2005 1:09 AM

In order:

Yes. Illegimate? So you say. Please do. No. Maybe, please provide some examples however.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at December 31, 2005 10:47 AM


I would give you a respectful answer if you had addressed my actual point, which was about the oppression of the Ba'ath regime in Iraq and the consequences in Iraq of being a supporter. It had nothing to do with the USA or terrorism by the Iraqi Ba'ath against the USA or its citizens. But clearly, being spoiled by the other commentors, I'm expecting too high a level of reading from you. So I'll lay it out explicitly:

1) Were the Iraqi Ba'ath, lead by Saddam Hussein, oppressive and brutal in Iraq?

2) Should those who supported this oppressive regime suffer any consequences from the formerly oppressed?

P.S. I'd be curious as to what you consider Cheney guilty of.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at December 31, 2005 11:36 AM

Even if the gov't of Israel were illegitimate, is paying crazy people to randomly blow up women and children a legitimate way to address that problem ?
That was what Saddam was doing, at the least.

If Saddam had sent in his elite Republican Guard Ninja Commandos, to attack either military targets or infrastructure, then we might have considered that a legitimate form of unorthodox warfare.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 31, 2005 2:14 PM

Sure, if it were illegitimate.

Posted by: oj at December 31, 2005 2:19 PM

So if U.S. forces had just started shooting people at random in Somalia, you would have found that to be a legitimate behavior ?

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 31, 2005 10:48 PM

Had we nuked it after Black Hawk Down no one would have batted an eyelash. No one weeps for Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Posted by: oj at January 1, 2006 12:23 AM