Your ignorance really doesn’t deserve a reply. Death Squads trained by U.S. soldiers? Are you serious? Thats probably the most ignorant statement i’ve ever heard. What about the torture chambers found under $addam’s 50 palaces. No wonder they couldn’t pay the power bill, he had tons of expensive palaces built for himself.
We’re sitting in a classroom with power, electricity, water, food, and safety thanks to our brave soldiers who you so elegantly called “cold-blooded killers” and “terrorists”. They are not terrorists, the 19 radical Islamists who hijacked American civilian airplanes and crashed them into civilian buildings were terrorists. You call us terrorists but when your country needs help, who do they call?……THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

This web-site is not designed to bash each others countries. This just might be an example of how our countries have trouble understanding each other. You think we are all cocky and arrogant and we wonder why the world hates the same country that has came to their aid before.

Before you judge an entire country, go meet an American or visit the U.S. if possible. Its probably the only way you could see the truth, the real America instead of what the news puts out to sell their papers or newscasts.

There isn’t much else to do except apologize to Esra’a on behalf of everyone for how this post got out of hand.

And we’ll end this with a “Have a nice day”.

Kyle and Brandon

Jina, now you are talking about the cost-benefit analysis – what’s worse, thousands killed under Saddam or thousands killed in a war? I think they are both pretty terrible, and neither should have happened, but the actions/decisions that have been made can’t be reversed it’s only a matter of what to do moving forward.

Mohammad, I completely agree that the US has some blame in the environment that has been created which allows suicide bombings to flourish. However, an individual’s actions can never, ever be blamed 100% of their environment. People still make choices. Also, I don’t think that a majority of Americans think that what happens in the ME can do no harm to us – that’s exactly the perception that changed after 9/11. It would be very arrogant and ignorant to assume that in our globalized society, actions in one part of the world would not affect other parts of the world.

1: “The US should be blamed for sectarian riots which foster suicide bombers who kill their own brethren.” you are right, I should add an ‘also’ in the sentence: “the US should also be…”

2: suicide acts killing innocent people is not justifiable at all. but, I think, US has to be blamed in these cases as well.

3: “let’s attack, let’s quit, let’s do this, let’s do that…yes, we can.” and most Americans think that what happens in this part of the world could do no harm to their safe island. I’m sorry. that is what I call ‘arrogance’.

Let me start by saying that I am not and never have been a supporter of the war in Iraq. However, that doesn’t mean that I don’t recognize some of the good products of the war – like the schools and infastructure that Kyle and Brandon referenced.

Hmmm… blowing two schools up and then building one doesn’t equate anything other then repaying for the damage that was done by the war. US whiped out the Iraqi infrastructure, it’s going take decades to get back to how it was under Saddam.

The US in no way forces suicide bombers to act, even if the US shares some responsibility for allowing a situation in where that type of behavior is deemed acceptable or honorable.

Under Saddam, this scenario was not possible or would have been very rare. Yes Saddam killed thousands, but Americans managed to kill just as much in less than 5 years. I am talking about the deaths that are directly related to the war and indirectly, such as hospitals being blown up, water supplies being bombed etc.

Also, who you define as a “victim” of the Iraq war is most likely not be what I define as a victim. I don’t think the suicide bombers are victims, I think they are perpretators; and therefore I do not feel one ounce of sorrow or pity towards them. I find any defense of their actions deplorable.

No one is calling the suicide bombers victim here, I am not sure where you got that from.

Mohammad Memarian said “The US should be blamed for sectarian riots which foster suicide bombers who kill their own brethren.” That statement removes any responsibility on behalf of those who actually use the bombs, which is absolutely absurd. The US in no way forces suicide bombers to act, even if the US shares some responsibility for allowing a situation in where that type of behavior is deemed acceptable or honorable. Also, who you define as a “victim” of the Iraq war is most likely not be what I define as a victim. I don’t think the suicide bombers are victims, I think they are perpretators; and therefore I do not feel one ounce of sorrow or pity towards them. I find any defense of their actions deplorable.

Committing suicide in the name of your cause is one thing, taking tens or hundreds or thousands of lives (regardless of what those people believe about your cause) with you is quite another….and it is something that I will never believe to be morally justifiable.

first of all, [sometimes] terrorism is the weapon of those who have no access to modern tanks or f16s. you make me wish if somebody could provide the rebels with more EFPs so as to just kill american soldiers in a more conventional form, not theselves and many others in an asymetric war.

second, US should be blamed for sectarian riots which fosters suicide bombers who kill their own brethen rather than liars who illegally occupied Iraq.

third, dont worry; the number of victims of US led invasion is likely to exceed the number of victims of Saddam regime. just wait a bit more.

finally, about the constructive projects: it would take Iraqi people many decades to compensate what your 10-ton-bombs, tanks and army did to their infrastructure… let alone their intellectual/intangible properties destroyed by this damn war.

your comment was great and I’m still thinking… let me just talk when I’m ready.

Mass murdering terrorists? Is that what you call liberators? Our soldiers liberate a country from one of the most dangerous regimes on earth, and we get called terrorists? Its a liberation!!! Freedom is that “new way of life” that our brave soldiers brought. Media doesn’t show the good things that we’re doing like building new schools, helping them establish a new government and police force. Those daily bombings that you’re talking about aren’t Americans, they’re YOUR people blowing up YOUR people! How many American suicide bombers have there been?…..ZERO. You also said we don’t know what our country has done for other countries? Explain to us what your country has done to help the people of Iraq. You also asked how Americans would feel if Arabs invaded our country. If our leader did what Saddam did, killing millions of his own people, I would thank you for your help in liberating us. I wouldn’t call you terrorists.

P.S. Thank you Tanto.

Yet I can still spew racial hatred anywhere while questioning any other genocide I want without anyone raising an eyebrow at it.

I think it’s for this reason that France took action and began recognizing the danger in having others deny certain genocides too. I wish other countries would follow its lead.

I would argue the Holocaust has received and continues to receive special treatment over any other genocide in the world.

My point wasn’t to discuss the Holocaust. I only used that as an example to highlight free speech as a public safety threat.

I’m not a Holocaust scholar so this isn’t my area of expertise, but I would argue the reason behind why it has gotten the most attention is probably for several reasons: 1)because it happened in Europe, and events in Europe nearly always take precedence over events that happen in “non-white” parts of the world; 2) because the Holocaust wasn’t a contained genocide like others, but that Jews thousands of miles also were threatened by it; 3) the forces that perpetuated the Holocaust were not tribal, ethnic, or religious, but rather based upon a fascist mindset that transcended many boundaries and included people from Germany, Croatia, Ukraine, etc. so that Jews were unable to escape to neighborly nations to a refugee camp; 4) the Holocaust was the only genocide that was systematically organized and perpetuated by a modern, industrial war machine which gives it an additonal level of uniqueness; and 5) Jews around the world care enough about the event to organize themselves to create a mass public awareness campaign about it. The Armenian genocide gets a lot of attention too, largely because the Armenian community is well organized about keeping it alive in the world’s consciousness.

I also don’t think holocaust denial is always a trace of Nazism.

Maybe not always a trace of Nazism per se, but it usually is, and it is always motivated by nefarious reasons. I cannot imagine a Holocaust denier who actually likes and/or respects the Jewish people.

Questioning that it ever happened is not anti-Semiticism or hate speech.

I think it is, E., because that means they believe that Jews have come together to scam the entire world with falsehood by (allegedly) planting evidence, brainwashing people, taking money that doesn’t belong to them, etc., and convincing the world that people were criminals when they really weren’t. Doubting the Holocaust means that “white Europe” could likely be the real victim at the hands of Jews and their so-called lies rather than the other way around.

Assertions that Jews lie communally to take advantage of non-Jews is anti-Semitism.

I don’t think Holocaust denial is ever perpetuated by someone who doesn’t have a problem with bigotry toward Jews.

It’s not because Jews deserve special treatment compared to Muslims.

I would argue the Holocaust has received and continues to receive special treatment over any other genocide in the world.

I also don’t think holocaust denial is always a trace of Nazism.

Questioning that it ever happened is not anti-Semiticism or hate speech.

the problem of ‘freedom of speech’ is still more of a dilemma to me. then, be sure that if I’m asking, I’m really seeking an answer.

To be honest with you, I think the issue of free speech is one of the hardest for people to understand, especially when it comes to hate speech. I live in the USA where freedom of speech is central to our values and culture. It is the first amendment in our Bill of Rights, and we learn about it from the earliest age, yet even we here still grasp with how to apply it. It’s not just you, Mohammad.

It might help to know that where I live we distinguish between “hate crimes,” and “hate incidents.” A hate crime is a criminal act that is predicated upon bias or prejudice against a person or group because of their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or national origin. A crime can be some sort of violence, or an act of vandalism, or a form of harassment. A hate incident, on the other hand, is an act that is hateful, yet still legal, like someone calling you a racist name as you walk past him/her on the street but without any additional threat involved. Bigot? Yes. Crime? No. So, a person can walk past you and legally say something really hateful about Iranians or Muslims, but a person cannot walk past you and legally threaten to hurt you while calling you such names.

The reason for this is because, for the most part, I think freedom of speech tends to be limited here and in other western countries only in circumstances where there is a direct link to public safety. It’s not just about violence either. A person cannot yell “FIRE!” in a crowded, enclosed place just for fun because clearly that will cause immediate, unthinking panic and people will get hurt. A person also cannot tell someone else, “Go and kill that dirty homo and I’ll make sure to protect you,” because clearly that’s direct incitement to commit a crime. However, a person could say, “Homos are evil, evil, evil,” and if a follower goes out and kills one because he believes it, the leader saying they are evil is not necessarily liable. There must be a direct link of personal responsibility for the crime itself.

Speech as a direct threat to public safety is exactly why Europe bans Holocaust denial, and Nazism, but not offensive cartoons about religion. It’s not because Jews deserve special treatment compared to Muslims. It’s because Nazism has a proven track record of genocide, dragging the world into war, conquest over minorities and territory, etc., and undoubtedly caused the worst social, civil, and economic fiasco ever to hit Europe. And, since its roots are right there in Europe itself, the continent has a very real need to do whatever it takes to keep Nazism’s roots from growing ever again into a mass movement. Questioning, or denying the Holocaust is not done for academic reasons by respectable scholars, but to make Nazism seem not quite so bad and to recruit adherents, and that’s why Europe bans speech that bolsters it … because that particular brutal, fascist movement is a direct threat to their public safety. The same is not true about cartoons and other forms of hate speech, like religiously motivated hate speech against gays or public degradation of women, however offensive the words may be. Those would be hate incidents, not hate crimes.

I think holocaust deniers also have the right to argue for their opinions. They are for the most part conspiracy theorists, and these guys, although sometimes nuts, aren’t inciting hatred or advocating violence of any kind. Denying the holocaust ever happened is not a form of anti-Semitisim, just questioning facts. Everyone has the right to question facts, just like we should have the right to question Islam. Holocaust deniers are not saying “the holocaust never happened; so let’s create one!” they are either just saying “it never happened” or “it may have never happened,” or that “it was exaggerated.”

Now the question is why holocaust deniers don’t have free speech and yet the deniers of the Armenian genocide, or Bengali genocide (or any other genocides) are free to deny that such atrocities ever happened… to me it should be questioning genocides all together instead of just picking one and outlawing its denial. France I think made it illegal to question the Armenian genocide. The Armenian-American community struggled to win their people justice by trying to make the American government recognize this genocide. Still it’s absolutely fine to question it in the media and elsewhere… but yes, if someone dares question the holocaust anywhere in the West, the consequences are dire. It seems really unfair yes, but it’s understandable – it became outlawed because for many years its denial was also directly linked to a lot of anti-Semiticism that was taking place.

Anyways this was probably irrelevant to what you were really asking.. is this what you are exploring? Do you think insulting the Prophet should be outlawed in Western societies?

the problem of ‘freedom of speech’ is still more of a dilemma to me. then, be sure that if I’m asking, I’m really seeking an answer.

I remember that (british?) scientist who once claimed “africans are less likely to improve for they lack proper intellectual capabilities” and this ’scientific’ opinion was regarded as a ‘racist’ one; i.e. something clearly out of league. again, we have this ‘holocaust deniers’ (please… I’m not one of them, nor am I supporting their ‘freedom of speech’; I’m just trying to investigate a phenomenon) who are denied their right of freedom of speech.

and, on the other hand, we observe the claim of danish cartoonists about Prophet Muhammad being a terrorist (or so) which is equally arguable; and the rest.

why is it so?

Satirical speech is still free speech, so yes. If the cartoons implied “kill all Muslims,” then that is hate speech. But if it’s just “insulting” our Prophet, just like many cartoons insult and downplay Jesus, it’s still free speech. Unfortunately as much as people disagree, retarded and ignorant speech does qualify as free speech… we can’t possibly outlaw offensive insults if it is not exactly inciting hatred. It’s simply a form of mockery.

But my article is not really about that, it’s more about us being so insulted by this and yet as a community do so much to harm and mock minority religions.