Sahel

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
PERHAPS no fact is more revealing about Iraq’s history than this: The Iraqis have a word that means to utterly defeat and humiliate someone by dragging his corpse through the streets.

The word is “sahel,” and it helps explain much of what I have seen in three and a half years of covering the war.

It is a word unique to Iraq, my friend Razzaq explained over tea one afternoon on my final tour. Throughout Iraq’s history, he said, power has changed hands only through extreme violence, when a leader was vanquished absolutely, and his destruction was put on display for all to see.

Most famously it happened to a former prime minister, Nuri al-Said, who tried to flee after a military coup in 1958 by scurrying through eastern Baghdad dressed as a woman. He was shot dead. His body was disinterred and hacked apart, the bits dragged through the streets. In later years, Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party crushed their enemies with the same brand of brutality.

“Other Arabs say, ‘You are the country of sahel,’ ” Razzaq said. “It has always been that way in Iraq.”

But in this war, the moment of sahel has been elusive. No faction — not the Shiite Arabs or Sunni Arabs or Kurds — has been able to secure absolute power, and that has only sharpened the hunger for it.

Listen to Iraqis engaged in the fight, and you realize they are far from exhausted by the war. Many say this is only the beginning.

President Bush, on the other hand, has escalated the American military involvement here on the assumption that the Iraqi factions have tired of armed conflict and are ready to reach a grand accord. Certainly there are Iraqis who have grown weary. But they are not the ones at the country’s helm; many are among some two million who have fled, helping leave the way open for extremists to take control of their homeland.

“We’ve changed nothing,” said Fakhri al-Qaisi, a Sunni Arab dentist turned hard-line politician who has three bullets lodged in his torso from a recent assassination attempt. “It’s dark. There will be more blood.”..............

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/weekinreview/03wong.html?ref=world
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
PERHAPS no fact is more revealing about Iraq’s history than this: The Iraqis have a word that means to utterly defeat and humiliate someone by dragging his corpse through the streets.

The word is “sahel,” and it helps explain much of what I have seen in three and a half years of covering the war.

It is a word unique to Iraq, my friend Razzaq explained over tea one afternoon on my final tour. Throughout Iraq’s history, he said, power has changed hands only through extreme violence, when a leader was vanquished absolutely, and his destruction was put on display for all to see.

Most famously it happened to a former prime minister, Nuri al-Said, who tried to flee after a military coup in 1958 by scurrying through eastern Baghdad dressed as a woman. He was shot dead. His body was disinterred and hacked apart, the bits dragged through the streets. In later years, Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party crushed their enemies with the same brand of brutality.

“Other Arabs say, ‘You are the country of sahel,’ ” Razzaq said. “It has always been that way in Iraq.”

But in this war, the moment of sahel has been elusive. No faction — not the Shiite Arabs or Sunni Arabs or Kurds — has been able to secure absolute power, and that has only sharpened the hunger for it.

Listen to Iraqis engaged in the fight, and you realize they are far from exhausted by the war. Many say this is only the beginning.

President Bush, on the other hand, has escalated the American military involvement here on the assumption that the Iraqi factions have tired of armed conflict and are ready to reach a grand accord. Certainly there are Iraqis who have grown weary. But they are not the ones at the country’s helm; many are among some two million who have fled, helping leave the way open for extremists to take control of their homeland.

“We’ve changed nothing,” said Fakhri al-Qaisi, a Sunni Arab dentist turned hard-line politician who has three bullets lodged in his torso from a recent assassination attempt. “It’s dark. There will be more blood.”..............

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/weekinreview/03wong.html?ref=world
And that is what many of the milbloggers contend also. They however believe we need to use controlled violence to get the point across. Can't see that happening though.
 
OP
Superlative

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
And that is what many of the milbloggers contend also. They however believe we need to use controlled violence to get the point across. Can't see that happening though.

It is doubtful.

But if the US can get someone in power that is sympathetic to the "needs" of the US, and can rule as "necessary" to provide stability, I think everyone will be able to look the other way.
 

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
Not understanding this country has been the trademark of this admin.

When they used the word crusade I think it was clear to all just how lacking their educations were.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
It is doubtful.

But if the US can get someone in power that is sympathetic to the "needs" of the US, and can rule as "necessary" to provide stability, I think everyone will be able to look the other way.
That is not clear. What do you mean? What would they be 'looking the other way at?'
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Not understanding this country has been the trademark of this admin.

When they used the word crusade I think it was clear to all just how lacking their educations were.
Wrong, if they'd had the balls to stick with Crusade and mean it, things would be different. It's the West that fails to recognize the aggressors are religious based.
 

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
I thought we were saving Iraq from Sadam not taking for our own use?
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
I thought we were saving Iraq from Sadam not taking for our own use?
That would be al queda, sorry you failed to get the point. Probably clear to everyone but you.
 

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
so we didnt dispose Sadam?

We didnt go because of WMDs?

We went for the AQ ties which did not exsist?

You see using the word crusade doesnt just insult AQ.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
so we didnt dispose Sadam?

We didnt go because of WMDs?

We went for the AQ ties which did not exsist?

You see using the word crusade doesnt just insult AQ.
Two different fronts. Now you threw in Plame and what have you. One would have to surmise after reading all your posts, that it's because you really haven't a grip on what's going on.

Truly, you are mixing oranges, strawberries, and tomatoes. Not to mention apples.
 
OP
Superlative

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
That is not clear. What do you mean? What would they be 'looking the other way at?'


I mean the US will have someone in power that gives the US what they want, and rules with an Iron fist, not unlike Saddam, only this time we will look the other way, because we now understand the Saddam was a necessary evil in controlling the region.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
I mean the US will have someone in power that gives the US what they want, and rules with an Iron fist, not unlike Saddam, only this time we will look the other way, because we now understand the Saddam was a necessary evil in controlling the region.
I hope not. That would be repeating our failures of the past 60+ years.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
so we didnt dispose Sadam?

We didnt go because of WMDs?

We went for the AQ ties which did not exsist?

You see using the word crusade doesnt just insult AQ.
"Dispose" Saddam?:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

WMDs was one of the reasons we DEPOSED Saddam. You going to be your usual brilliant self and get your ass handed to you on THIS as well?
 
OP
Superlative

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
I hope not. That would be repeating our failures of the past 60+ years.


Well, I doubt that a people with a firm belief in such things as "Sahel" would quickly adapt to democracy, it will take at least a decade for something remotely civil to come about in Iraq,(IMO) if all you have ever known is fighting, then peace is a foreign concept to say the least. and will not come about over nite.
 

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
That would be al queda, sorry you failed to get the point. Probably clear to everyone but you.

Now Gunny ive heard you say that anyone who thought we went to Iraq because Sdam was in cahoots with AQ is a fool.

Are you going to ingore the contexts of these statements?
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Now Gunny ive heard you say that anyone who thought we went to Iraq because Sdam was in cahoots with AQ is a fool.

Are you going to ingore the contexts of these statements?
When it comes to butchering the English language, Archie Bunker's got NOTHING on YOU.

What are you blathering on about now? Speaking of context ... feel free to link the audience to where I said that so the studio audience and MILLIONS at home can see the context in which this alleged statement I made was said.
 

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
Gunny it is obvious that Kathy just said we took out Sadam because he was tied to AQ.

Dont you remember what you said about those who believe such things?
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Gunny it is obvious that Kathy just said we took out Sadam because he was tied to AQ.

Dont you remember what you said about those who believe such things?
You are a poor spinmeister. How you could get from here to there is amazing. I am way too far into posts to be hung with that canard.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Gunny it is obvious that Kathy just said we took out Sadam because he was tied to AQ.

Dont you remember what you said about those who believe such things?
What I remember is irrelevant to the fact that you are stating I posted something and now trying to dodge providing evidence to support your allegation.

One of the reasons we deposed Saddam was the fear that he would provide terrorists/terrorist organizations with WMDs.

There is no concrete evidence that supports Saddam having an operational relationship with al Qaeda, and the administration did not use the term al Qaeda when justifying invading ... it used "terrorist organizations."

Your obvious and lame attempt to stir up shit between me and kathianne is just what it is. She could have mispoke, or she might very well believe Saddam had ties to al Qaeda. There certainly is circumstantial evidence to support it.

Either way, she and I have disagreed before. If it comes to that, we'll get over it and not carry it on and on and on like another certain poster likes to do.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top