Black Book of Saddamy

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Wed, 2006-05-17 07:49

( categories: )

I'd say it's hard bigotry

Mario's picture

"The pattern is plain: Over and over again, perceived abuses by Western societies--colonialism, the Vietnam war--are revisited in conversation and thought until they are part of our mental furniture. What happens to the crimes of others is very different."

That for me was the money quote. I understand the idea of soft bigotry, but I'm not convinced that that's what motivates the attack on the West while other cultures get off without criticism.

As I said once on my blog, I think it's the multiculturalist notion that we cannot judge other cultures -- leaving only our own culture available to criticize.

I'd call that hard bigotry directed towards us.

No crumbs of credit

Kenny's picture

The fact is that the Islamic terrorists, such as Al Quaeda, have not been defeated. If we are to believe the Blair Government (and that's a tough one) Britain remains under great threat from a major terrorist strike. Such a great threat did not exist six years ago.

Successive US governments failed to take action against American funders of the IRA, such as Noraid, when it was at its most murderous, e.g. London bombings. Congress still has not ratified the extradition treaty with Britain that would enable IRA criminals that are living in the US to be brought to justice.

As for the neo-cons (like Jean Kirkpatrick) who opposed US support for Britain's war to take back the Falklands..... Let's just say that I am sick and tired of the double standards and hypocrisy.

Tarred with the same brush

Sandi's picture

"Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, the University of California at Santa Cruz, Bryn Mawr, Amherst colleges, and Florida State University, have already offered courses; that discuss Abu Ghraib as a place where U.S. soldiers committed abuses, NOT as a place in which Saddam's secret police tortured thousands to death"


We act with great restraint
, establishing rules of engagement that limit the use of force by our military. We apologize when we hurt civilians, prosecute our soldiers if they humiliate prisoners, assign correspondents to military units to monitor their actions, and send lawyers with our troops to ensure that they “follow the rules.” When captured Americans are beheaded on television, we do not close down the broadcasts or attack the governments financing them—we search for the particular killers. When the enemy acquires nuclear power plants, we refer to the country providing him with those plants as a “friend” and an “ally.” When the enemy uses banks to finance his war against us, we call on our lawyers to “freeze his assets,” but never call on our generals to destroy his capital. We remind the people in his nation incessantly that our war is not with them, but rather with “extremists” who have “hijacked a great religion.”


Jeff Perren's picture

Pragmatists deserve moral condemnation, particularly when they are willing to support scum like Saddam. But, while you are condemning them, you might give them a crumb of credit for being two major forces for advocating and taking aggressive action against the Islamists.

Far from perfect they may be, but do their views and actions of the last 6 years count for nothing?

Rumsfeld and Cheney - Saddam's whores

Kenny's picture

The article makes much of Saddam's war against Iran. He was supported by the US, Donald Rumsfeld in particular. He shook Saddam's hand with pleasure. Dick Cheney was the White House's Chief of Staff, under Jerry Ford, at the time. Pass the sick bag - the hypocrisy is nauseating!

Never Forget

Jeff Perren's picture

"It's no coincidence that the Black Book of Saddam Hussein has been received with what Kutschera describes as a "chill" by the French commentariat, has been ignored by the reviewers in the leading French newspapers--Le Monde, Le Figaro, and Libération--and was reviewed only snidely by Le Monde Diplomatique.

This is the real virtue of the Black Book and other volumes like it. They offer the details that most news media and college classes won't. They memorialize those who otherwise might be forgotten. And they are the raw materials for an alternative storyline, one that takes all peoples seriously enough to say that they are moral agents, both for evil and for good." [Emphasis added.]

Excellent Article

Marcus's picture

"The pattern is plain: Over and over again, perceived abuses by Western societies--colonialism, the Vietnam war--are revisited in conversation and thought until they are part of our mental furniture. What happens to the crimes of others is very different. Some of them get sucked down the memory hole."

The entire problem stems from the philosophical tradition perpetuated by religion,

"Oh Lord (=my critics are right) please punish me, I am guilty and arrogant."

Not just held by those that call themselves religious - but a moral code of implied guilt held as "virtue" by nearly everyone.

Rand would have identified it with the soul-destroying notion of "self-immolation" as being something noble.

More Blackness

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Now that we have The Black Book of Communism what we need is The Black Book of Islam. And finally: The Black Book of Religion. It would be nice if someone were to formally and officially document all the historical horrors of "god." But even a brief treatment of this subject might run to 10,000 pages! 

Challenging their world view

Tim S's picture

Very good.

I especially liked this little nugget:

"The soft bigotry here is not of low expectations but of no expectations. This suggests that only Westerners have moral agency. To deny a person the capacity to initiate evil is to deny them the capacity to initiate good, or anything in between."

You have to really sock the Left intelligentsia between the eyes to challenge their world view, but still they always find ways to deny the truth.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.