Skip navigation.

Saddam's cousin speaks out

Interesting what this formerly imprisoned opponent of Saddam has to say:

Saddam Hussein's cousin Muzahem al-Majeed, who spent eight years in prison for opposing his relative, said on Friday U.S. officials must open talks with Sunni Muslim insurgents if they want a tranquil Iraq.

There should be a dialogue with those leaders or those who represent them if they really want Iraq to stabilize," said Majeed, 39, freed from solitary confinement only after the collapse of Saddam's regime after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
Majeed, deputy head of the broad-based National Salvation Front, a legal political group, told Reuters in Amman during a stop on his way to Iraq, that he was not surprised the Americans were failing to win over many Sunnis and facing a ferocious insurgency.

The Americans marginalised acceptable figures in Iraq and went along with those who propagated lies before the occupation and who hold sectarian views," Majeed said.

-Reuters.com

he's obviously got it all

he's obviously got it all wrong. the u.s. military should take advice from the hate-mongers here and just kill everyone who says something bad about america.

This one is strange

I don't recall where, but I seem to recall hearing recently that mainstream Sunnis are being promised more representation in the emerging constitution. That's probably a good thing, where Sunni extremists would otherwise pull on the mainstream to keep the insurgency going: I thought that Sunni extremists were most of what made up Saddam's Baath party and forces.

But why would a family opponent of Saddam put forward the very party that instigated so much terror on Iraqis? What are his motives? Did he oppose Saddam's tyranny or just oppose Saddam because he'd rather be in charge himself? It's hard for me to assume he means well if he advocates negotiations with insurgents - at the same time, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has said that secret meetings with insurgents happen all the time, so the advice may be moot.

I think Peter Galbraith has interesting things to say about the situation. He is for the war, but also proposes structuring the emerging democracy differently than what is taking place - he argues that Iraq is really three different nations who were only forced together by a tyrant, and that Iraq should disband into three different free nations. I'm not sure I agree, and Galbraith also says the war is going badly, which I disagree with.

he's an idiot

The problem is that you can't negotiate with people like the insurgents in iraq.

First, it's not clear that there are leaders who would be able to make decisions in behalf of all the other insurgents, and obviously we don't know who or where they are otherwise they'd be dead.

Second, their demands are outrageous. Some claim that they want the U.S. to withdraw, but obviously they are not going to be happy with just that--they want complete control of the government, which is why they murder anyone who supports the iraqi government.

Think about it, you want us to negotiate, but there is nothing to negotiate with people whose strategy is to intentionally murder every last person in the world until total control is conceded to them.

You want to offer the insurgents a place in the government? If they kill civilian iraqis without political power, what do you think they're going to do with it?

IRA

IRA

Well said..

Except that insults always haunt you even if they are well placed..

At any rate, I agree - there isn't negotiating with terrorists, and I wonder why there are ever meetings with insurgents. Maybe it's to extract information and make promises of appeasement while really using the information against them. I don't know what goes on, and I don't demand to. If the Fed discloses too much on intelligence operations they disclose the process and source of information, threatening security. I trust the Fed and the military in this war.

What are his motives?

What are his motives? Possibly he feels it's the right thing to do? Maybe he thinks it will work? Maybe he hates seeing Iraqis die and wants to do something about it? Just because he disagrees with you doesn't mean he's a bad person. And the secret meetings of which you speak don't mean it's moot. It means that they've reevaluated their tactics. When I said 'reevaluate our tactics' in the other post, I wasn't talking about pulling out. I was talking about doing other things like this. Like using static line in the battle room. My real intent in posting about the attacks in London wasn't to suggest that we pull out of Iraq- it was to see if there were an ideas as to things we could do better in fighting terror more effectively so that the attacks on London aren't repeated elsewhere.

fyi

MrMarbles:

Sarcasm is the weapon of the ignorant.

meet and capture them fine, negotiate no.

I think it's fine to meet with individual groups of insurgents. If they're willing to tell us where they are so we can come and get information from them or possibly capture them then that's fine. The suggestion that we should be negotiating with the insurgency in iraq is unrealistic however because their terms are impossible and there's no real known leadership.

The IRA are not like the

The IRA are not like the insurgents in Iraq. Since you just mention them and don't even bother to defend it I assume that's because you don't know how to.

Here's how they're different:

The Provos (IRA) had very specific demands. They wanted the British out of Ireland and a reunification of Ireland. That gives you a starting point for negotiations.

They had leadership, so there was someone to negotiate with.

Now obviously the IRA is a terrorist organization, but let's face it, your wonderful example of the success of negotiations sucks. It took 27 years to cool them off to the point that they would negotiate, and even now, roughly 35 years later, the IRA still isn't disbanding as they agreed, but rather recruiting and training new members in explosives and firearms and running them through terrorist drills.

It really doesn't matter

It really doesn't matter that y'all think that talks with the insurgents/terrorists won't accomplish anything- it's the right thing to do. Further- who are y'all to say it won't work? For all you insult speculation you sure do a lot of it. There are a lot of statements to the tune of 'never' and 'not at all possible'. Why won't you give it a chance? It's an attempt to avoid war and bloodshed. If war and bloodshed happen anyways- that sucks but at least we tried everything at our disposal to avoid it. Obviously killing someone is a good way to get their opposition to stop. But there are other options that we should try. I don't care if they don't work- we should try them regardless because it's the right thing to do. And don't try and use the appeasement policy of the 1930s to defend yourselves- it's speculation after all and there's speculation that standing firm wouldn't have had an effect on the devestation caused by the World War.

"... recruiting and training

"... recruiting and training new members in explosives and firearms and running them through terrorist drills."

sounds like iraqi insurgents to me...

"They wanted the British out of Ireland and a reunification of Ireland."

the iraqi insurgents claim they want the USA out of iraq and a return to power--this could be considered a negotiating point

"The IRA are not like the insurgents in Iraq."

LOL

how is it that

All hail!

It really doesn't matter that y'all think that talks with the insurgents/terrorists won't accomplish anything- it's the right thing to do.

Behold, the Great Oz has spoken!

Do not contradict that which is right in the sight of the Great Oz!

Negotiation

How are you supposed to negotioate with a group that has claimed that democracy is evil and needs to be destroyed? How are you supposed to negotiate with a group that doesn't hold their own lives sacred, let alone all of the people around them?

If you already know it's not going to work going into the situation, why even waste your time? You've been drinking far too much of the liberal kool-aid to even realize what you are saying. "I don't care if they don't work- we should try them regardless because it is the right thing to do."

You can't negotiate with people who believe they are on a mission from God or Osama (who is equal to God in the mind of quite a few would be terrorists.) If you think that trying to negotiate with terrorists has any chance of working, you are one of the poorest students of history or quite simply ignorant.

no

"It really doesn't matter that y'all think that talks with the insurgents/terrorists won't accomplish anything- it's the right thing to do."

no--negotiating with terrorists is the wrong thing to do . (it teaches the world that if you can kill 3,000 americans--the US will sit down at the negotiating table and hear out your demands)

"Why won't you give it a chance?"

because they attacked us killing thousands of people and they continue to plan-out and carry-out more attacks all the time--asking them to stop (again) is the wrong choice

"and there's speculation that standing firm wouldn't have had an effect on the devestation caused by the World War."

yeah...as argued by lunatics "wouldn't have had an effect"--lol--no effect at all? EVERY single thing would have happened the same? (motion-by-motion second-by-second?)

Behold, the Great Oz has

Behold, the Great Oz has spoken!




sarcasm.... and yet you get on tyler's back about it.


Why are you suggesting that something whose purpose is to avoid death and destruction isn't the right thing to do?

You can't negotiate with

You can't negotiate with people who believe they are on a mission from God




Which is exactly why no one will be able to negotiate with the Bush administration. All that your comments have done is convince me that y'all think that you are automatically in the right when you commit the second most serious sin just because somehow you've convinced yourself that you(America) are on God's side and anyone who isn't automatically deserves to die. How tragic for the world. For as much as y'all call me arrogant- I'm not the one who wants to kill everyone because they disagree with me just like the terrorists.

how insurgency is different from IRA, again

The IRA does not carry out suicide attacks, meaning the members of it still value their own lives. Since the insurgents in iraq kill themselves along with anyone else they can find (beheadings, butchering families so they can live in their home, etc) they obviously do not value their own lives. If someone doesn't value their life, negotiating (so the conflict doesn't go on forever and end up taking their life) has no value.

Also, it's hard to claim that the IRA would not be satisfied if Britian left Ireland and it was united. If you've ever listened to the sermons going on in Iraq by the Sheikhs you'd realize that the insurgents will not be happy with merely the withdrawl of American troops and power in Iraq (not a return to power, it's very unlikely that the majority of insurgents are Baathists) as they claim.

Because of the lack of heirarchy, absolute and unnegotiable demands, carelessness for their own lives, and religious intoxication of the insurgency in Iraq it is nothing like the IRA. Negotiations that haven't worked very well with the IRA after 35 years are much much less likely to work well with the insurgency.

Slower than frozen molasses...

sarcasm.... and yet you get on tyler's back about it.

My comment to tyler, quoting your immortal words, was itself sarcasm.

I apologize if the Great Oz is too wise and all-knowing to recognize the cheap rhetorical parlor tricks of the ignorant.

Why are you suggesting that something whose purpose is to avoid death and destruction isn't the right thing to do?

Would it be moral to shoot dead a suicide bomber moments before he/she detonated their bomb, killing dozens of bystanders? I would argue that it would be moral. Killing that suicide bomber, ironically, would actually have the purpose of avoiding "death and destruction."

But I understand what you are saying: that every avenue needs to be explored, every side-street travelled, before setting off on the highway of killing terrorists. Nonetheless, I disagree. I think that you reach a point when exploring alleys of compromise and negotiation actually leads to greater "death and destruction."

In summary, I don't believe that anyone here is driven by a desire for "death and destruction", nor are we averse to policies that would minimize the same. Which makes your pious moral platitudes annoying at best, and downright insulting at worst.

Perhaps you could profer a quote.

I'm not the one who wants to kill everyone because they disagree with me just like the terrorists.

I don't recall anyone advocating murder on the basis of disagreement. Could you point out where this was said?

Astounding.

After replying to a couple of your comments something occured to me...

Something that I aluded to in my previous comment was that those of us advocating a hard-line against the terrorists (even killing them) are also interested in preventing "death and destruction." I utilized an analogy of killing a suicide bomber to demonstrate this.

Looking over your comments again, however, I realize that this is a conclusion that you wholly reject. You see your way of dealing with terrorists as the only way that is moral and that has as its purpose the avoidance of "death and destruction."

For example, you said:

I'm not the one who wants to kill everyone because they disagree with me just like the terrorists.

This is a rather astounding statement!

The obvious corollary to your position that you are the only one advocating policies that don't embrace "death and destruction" is that the rest of us embrace "death and destruction" and want more of it.

Again, a truly astounding conclusion.

I may call you stupid, dumb, ignorant, or even "the Great Oz" given your use of what I consider goofy logical reasoning and an inability to recognize sarcasm...

But while we disagree on methods of fighting terrorism, it would be rather inappropriate to ascribe your policy choices to a desire for more "death and destruction."

Yet looking at your body of comments, I can only conclude that this is exactly what you do...and in a rather unimaginative way.

ha!

"I'm not the one who wants to kill everyone because they disagree with me"

the terrorists don't simply disagree with you--they want to KILL you (as they have stated many times)
they are not interested in negotiations at all--otherwise they would have invited us to the negotiating table PRIOR to MURDERING THOUSANDS of our INNOCENT civilians--

well spoken

i'm now convinced that the IRA and the insurgency are vastly different (as you pointed out very well actually)

here's my question though...even if a terrorist values his own life (but obviously not those of others -as he is a terrorist-)--how does that make him any better? if he's bent on killing (by means of suicide bombing OR remote controlled bombing) he needs to be disposed of...simple as that

Eye for an eye...

For the most idiotic statement of all time, the winner goes to MrMarbles for his quote:

For as much as y'all call me arrogant- I'm not the one who wants to kill everyone because they disagree with me just like the terrorists.

Do you think we are hunting terrorists down because they disagree with us? That's almost as smart as calling this Bush's personal war. I swear you picked up the liberal bible and started quoting it verbatim thinking that you somehow had come up with an original thought.


So you think I want the terrorists to be killed because they disagree with me. If that were the case I'd want you dead as well because you are disagreeing with me. Your logic has now ground to stand on. I want to see terrorists captured or killed because they INSIST on killing innocent civilians. How many people who died in the attacks on the USS Cole, in the various African embassy attacks, in the bombings in London, or the massacre of 9/11 had any part of the decision making process of foreign policy? Very few if any at all. Of the thousands upon thousands of people killed by terrorist attacks, the only mistake most of those people made were getting out of bed in the morning.

In contrast, the terrorists train on how to kill the maximum amount of people possible. Where we try to avoid collateral damage, they seek to increase the scale of it. Where we try to preserve the lives of those that we can, the terrorists seek to end it as quickly and as effeciently as possible. I can't believe you are defending a group of people that would drag your dead body through the streets cheering about the death of an infidel.

We aren't commiting murder, we are extracting justice. If you think I am working on the death of anybody who disagrees with me why the hell aren't you dead yet?

easier to negotiate

It's not that it makes one a better person, but rather a better counterpart for negotiation. You at least have somewhere to start negotiating.

eye for an eye didn't jesus

eye for an eye

didn't jesus have something to say about this notion?

even if they're more sane...

negotiating is the wrong thing to do whether or not they value their own life...
so long as they don't value others' lives--and continue to kill the innocent--
sitting down and negotiating is rewarding bad behavior--
it tells them "you kill us and we will hear you out"

Here's a quote It is better

Here's a quote

It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

or here's another one

And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die.

Just for historical context, that last quote was from 1831.

jesus might'uv---but he

jesus might'uv---but he booked it for the heavens and is now allowing us to fight our own wars (so we don't HAVE to join him too soon)

seriously though, this is not even "eye for an eye"
this is "eliminating the evil mofo terrorists because they murdered 3,000 innocent civilians"

not only do we need to take out some terrorists' eyes for our own safety, but there happens to be this grand-eternal-principle-thingy a few of us like to call justice==and god left it to us to enact it (and i put forward that killing terrorists is well within its bounds)

Yeah.... there are semantic

Yeah.... there are semantic issues in the second quote that I don't feel that you appreciate to their full extent. It commands us not to kill and then doesn't tell us to kill those who kill but that they shall die. That's a big difference. Is it a temporal death or a spiritual death? Something to consider.
How about you read chapter 24 of Alma if you want scriptures about whether we should kill those willing to kill civilians laying face down on the earth.

you go on ahead

so when push comes to shove...you value the terrorists' lives more than those of the INNOCENT CIVILIANS don't you?

in fact, what you are suggesting (via your reference to alma 24), is that if/when the terrorists are attacking us we should do as the anti-nephi-lehies and just lay down and let the terrorists have their way with us (not only killing ourselves but allowing the terrorists victory)
--seems rather unfair to me (i never made a covenant to NOT fight EVIL to preserve my (and my family's) LIFE and LIBERTY--
however, you have your own free agency so do feel free to just lay down and die

in the process of doing so though, i am going to have to ask you to stop your incessant whining about my/our (the non-lunatic coprs') decision to defend our liberty (--i see no reason that we should have to allow the TERRORISTS to take away our INALIENABLE RIGHTS)