Doctors and prosthetists moved by the plight of Joudi and six other Iraqi merchants whose right hands were amputated at Abu Ghraib finished fitting each of the men with $50,000 “bionic” hands. Black tattoos of crosses that had been carved into the men’s foreheads to label them criminals were removed by a Houston plastic surgeon a few weeks earlier. All the services and products were donated.
As resentment of Americans in Iraq seems to swell each day, these seven Iraqis are unabashed in their gratitude, not just for their new hands, but for the U.S. role in ending what they call the “reign of horror” that claimed the lives of as many as 2.5 million of their countrymen.
"Tell the American people what all Iraqis want to tell to them," Salah Zinad said. “Tell them: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.”
The other six Iraqis were equally effusive, their appreciation undimmed by the current prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib, outside Baghdad, and other occupation worries back home.
“We have freedom in Iraq. Now we say anything we want,” Zinad said. “Under Saddam we whispered.”
In recent interviews, the seven Iraqis were unflagging in their confidence about Iraq’s future and the U.S. role in it.
Zinad on the prisoner abuse: "Some American soldiers are a problem. Not all Americans. These Americans who did this will be punished. Under Saddam, such abuses were rewarded and praised. Iraqis understand the difference
[quote=“fred smith”]Doctors and prosthetists moved by the plight of Joudi and six other Iraqi merchants whose right hands were amputated at Abu Ghraib finished fitting each of the men with $50,000 “bionic” hands. Black tattoos of crosses that had been carved into the men’s foreheads to label them criminals were removed by a Houston plastic surgeon a few weeks earlier. All the services and products were donated.
As resentment of Americans in Iraq seems to swell each day, these seven Iraqis are unabashed in their gratitude, not just for their new hands, but for the U.S. role in ending what they call the “reign of horror” that claimed the lives of as many as 2.5 million of their countrymen.
"Tell the American people what all Iraqis want to tell to them," Salah Zinad said. “Tell them: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.”
The other six Iraqis were equally effusive, their appreciation undimmed by the current prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib, outside Baghdad, and other occupation worries back home.
“We have freedom in Iraq. Now we say anything we want,” Zinad said. “Under Saddam we whispered.”
In recent interviews, the seven Iraqis were unflagging in their confidence about Iraq’s future and the U.S. role in it.
Zinad on the prisoner abuse: "Some American soldiers are a problem. Not all Americans. These Americans who did this will be punished. Under Saddam, such abuses were rewarded and praised. Iraqis understand the difference[/quote]
Woo Woo Woo Woo Woo. Big fucking deal. Is that all you got? There might be more in the June 21st 2003 edition of The Guardian (Manchester edition) but damn! where did I put it. Hmmm under the desk? On top of the cupboard? Ah well, never mind, it’s all in my head.
You are quick to accept the views of those that have been arrested by the Americans as truth? Interesting comparison. No wonder you all have such trouble with moral equivalence. hee heee hee
Fred has found a total of seven, not five, not six, oh no, but SEVEN people to back him up. Not political prisoners given back their freedom, but common thieves.
Maybe they could give some orphans to pedofiles, and they could say nice things about how the glorious Americans gave them new families…
We must write letters to our media and ask them to start interviewing former prisoners under Saddam and what about a nice documentary on the Killing Fields of Iraq? Then, maybe the mindless chatterers who like Michael Moore will finally understand what this is all about. More footage of the Twin Towers collapsing and bodies hitting the streets would work for me too.
Ooops I have made an error. I have been claiming that 15,000 Iraqis have been killed as a result of the war and occupation. I have errored on the side of exaggeration…
The human rights organization Amnesty International, based in London, estimated in March that more than 10,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed “as a direct result of military intervention in Iraq, either during the war or during the subsequent occupation.”
AI is naturally a sympathetic Bush loyalist organization that would be keen to minimize any deaths. Perhaps the real number therefore is closer to 5,000?
[quote=“Fred”]Ooops I have made an error. I have been claiming that 15,000 Iraqis have been killed as a result of the war and occupation. I have errored on the side of exaggeration…
The human rights organization Amnesty International, based in London, estimated in March that more than 10,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed “as a direct result of military intervention in Iraq, either during the war or during the subsequent occupation.”
AI is naturally a sympathetic Bush loyalist organization that would be keen to minimize any deaths. Perhaps the real number therefore is closer to 5,000?[/quote]
Just to give it some perspective:
[quote]Surveys pointing to high civilian death toll in Iraq
Preliminary reports suggest casualties well above the Gulf War.
By Peter Ford | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
BAGHDAD - Evidence is mounting to suggest that between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi civilians may have died during the recent war, according to researchers involved in independent surveys of the country.
None of the local and foreign researchers were willing to speak for the record, however, until their tallies are complete.
Such a range would make the Iraq war the deadliest campaign for noncombatants that US forces have fought since Vietnam.
…[/quote] csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html
5,000 to 10,000 compared with 150,000 who died of malnutrition and murder the year before because Saddam was playing corruption games with Chirac and Putin and building palaces all over the country. What do you have to say about that? Hmmm.
Also, the photos are only part of the Abu Ghraib scandal. There are several accounts that have been posted, the truth of which, has not been verified. The witnesses are of equally doubtful stature but you don’t say anything about that do you?
I say the truth might possibly be more shocking than what we have seen so far and what you would want to admit to.
But then you could always apply your generic excuse “doesn’t matter anyway because we have a plan and are doing the right thing, so a few thousand dead civilians and human rights abuses here and there don’t matter” …
You are misquoting me entirely. I never said that deaths do not matter. I never said the abuse in the Abu Ghraib prison was acceptable. I never even said that not finding wmds would not be a public relations problem. What I said was that pointing to such does not make our effort any less important nor right.
Given that I have never said what you have in quotation marks, perhaps you should review the definition of libel or slander?
[quote]Surveys pointing to high civilian death toll in Iraq
Preliminary reports suggest casualties well above the Gulf War.
By Peter Ford | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Baghdad - Evidence is mounting to suggest that between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi civilians may have died during the recent war, according to researchers involved in independent surveys of the country.
None of the local and foreign researchers were willing to speak for the record, however, until their tallies are complete.
Such a range would make the Iraq war the deadliest campaign for noncombatants that US forces have fought since Vietnam.
…[/quote] csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html[/quote]
Hmmmm… I wonder… I really wonder, Rascal, if those civilian deaths can be in any way attributable to the fact that our enemy in this war hides himself among civilians and places his strongholds in civilian neighborhoods and places bombs at the sides of roads where civilians walk and ride past?
Sure Tigerman, they ALL can be contributed to that and NONE are the fault of the US. Never ever.
Don’t think that was the point though and if the US had not invaded Iraq none of them would have died.
[quote=“fred”]You are misquoting me entirely. I never said that deaths do not matter. I never said the abuse in the Abu Ghraib prison was acceptable. I never even said that not finding wmds would not be a public relations problem. What I said was that pointing to such does not make our effort any less important nor right.
Given that I have never said what you have in quotation marks, perhaps you should review the definition of libel or slander?[/quote]
You are right, it was not a quote. Consider it a free interpretation of your views expressed here over time.
(Any suggestion what to use instead of the “” in future to indicate such? Normally I use single quotation marks for exact quotes and double ones for cases as the above (exaggerations, word-plays etc.)
Which one of us ever said that the US had caused no deaths? but given that the 10,000 during the war and occupation which has led to a Saddam free Iraq with a chance at improvement, I think that the moral equivocation of Saddam in power with millions dead and those caused not by US troops but by the fact that there are insurgents in a newly freed Iraq because of the US invasion is repellant. And why aren’t you angrier at the insurgents? Why are you angrier at the US which has caused perhaps 2,000 of those deaths directly under an entirely different moral framework than you are at the barbarism involved in the deaths of the innocent Iraqi women and children by terrorists and insurgents?
HAHAHAHA. Are you referring us to a piece by David Icke the British ex-sports presenter who some 18 odd years ago went on TV claiming to be the new Messiah?
