Comments on: Nick Cohen: crude parodies and a thinly veiled agenda

By: Thersites

Thersites — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 07:31:26 +0000

Which Kurds? The KDP, who invited Saddam to come back in 1996 to help them against the PUK? Earlier Kurdish rebellions failed because the clans decided they hated each other more than Saddam. By many accounts, all that unites the Kurdish clan leaders now is a common desire to loot the oil revenues.

Do you mean the marsh arabs who fought against Iran in the Iraqi army rather than turning on Saddam then? The marsh arabs’ rebellion wass anti-Sunni as much as- or more than- anti Baathist. They panicked the sunnis into backing Saddam for their own safety. A lot of Iraqis weren’t too enthusiastic about Saddam, but enough of them supported him and enough of them hated other people more to enable him and his cronies to keep power for a very long time.

By: raashid

raashid — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 13:17:05 +0000

Really? So the Kurds who rebelled against Saddam’s rule in the late 80s - a rebellion which cost 150,000 of their people’s lives “allowed” him to rule over them? As did the tens of thousands of Shia’s and marsh Arabs who were killed in 1991 for “allowing” him to rule over them?

By: Thersites

Thersites — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 10:23:30 +0000

As I said, I don’t think Saddam should have been got rid of. He couldn’t do any harm to anyone but Iraqis and they put up with him. Actually, Iraqis seem to be much more concerned with killing other Iraqis, so your question is moot, Raashid.

By: raashid

raashid — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 08:05:33 +0000

I wonder if you think British and American civilians deserve to be killed by Iraqis for the active support they gave to their leaders who attacked their country? After all, the citizens of those two countries had far more opportunities to remove their leaders then the Iraqi people had to remove theirs…

By: Thersites

Thersites — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 09:09:07 +0000

It took rather more than Saddam Hussein alone to shoot his way to power and to keep it. The Iraqi army acquiesced in his keeping power throughout all three wars. Even the Kurdish clan leaders were quite happy to call for his assistance him in their internal feuds. The embargo was not a deliberate targetting of Iraqi civilians- that was Saddam’s adaptation- ‘though I agree that it shows the stupidity and ignorance of the people who imposed it that they introduced something that so obviously allowed Saddam to increase his control over Iraq.

By: George Carty

George Carty — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 08:59:25 +0000

As I said, the fact that the Iraqis let Saddam and his friends rule them means that they deserved to have Saddam and his friends ruling them. Where have I apologised for "zionist terror"? Saddam was a tyrant who shot his way to power and then ruled Iraq by terror. By the way, this should be used against those Western hawks who argued for deliberate targeting of Iraqi civilians. The Germans deserved the bombings of Cologne, Hamburg and Dresden, because the supported the Nazis who were engaging in a genocidal occupation of Poland and parts of the Soviet Union. The Japs deserved the firebombing of Tokyo and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because they supported the militarist regime which was waging a barbarous war against the Chinese. Saddam ruled Iraq purely by fear - he didn't have anything like the popular support that (say) Hitler had. Also, his worst crime was the invasion of Iran - a crime where he was actually supported by most of the Western powers who viewed him as the lesser of two evils.

By: Thersites

Thersites — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 10:09:19 +0000

Right, Dr Mabuse, Saddam didn’t want penicillin- or anything- imported unless it was his cronies who imported it and he decided who got it. The embargo was wrong because it allowed Saddam to dodge the blame for the Iraqis’ suffering. Where’s your figure of 1.5 million dead come from? As I said, the fact that the Iraqis let Saddam and his friends rule them means that they deserved to have Saddam and his friends ruling them. Where have I apologised for “zionist terror”?

By: DrM

DrM — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:55:23 +0000

I don’t think you need to delve much into the motivation of judeofascists and their underlings for the stance that they take on issues. Cohen is just another predictable dreg. I see therShites is up to his usual nonsense, claiming that the 12 year embargo on the Iraq was not responsible for the deaths of 1.5 million Iraqis. Right. Saddam didnt want penicillin imported. Then again, what do you expect from an apologist for zionist terror?

By: jimjay

jimjay — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:26:12 +0000

He just doesn’t understand that those who opposed the war were (almost) entirely oppsed to the Saddam regime too - but didn’t think killing and improvishing large numbers of people in order to liberate them necessarily made sense.

Anyway, he should be happy - he got his way in the end - he got his war and it all turned out lovely didn’t it?

By: Julaybib

Julaybib — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:03:19 +0000

It’s not often I like to employ the term ‘Islamophobe’ to describe media pundist. It’s a term that has been over-used - proclaiming Polly Toynbee ‘Islamophobe of the Year’ was pure nonsense. But Nick’s writings reek of anti-Muslim prejudice to the extent that I don’t even bother to read them these days.