Steven Vincent plot thickens

It is an outrage that Steven Vincent was killed and his translator, Nour al-Khal, was shot and badly roughed up last week.
Every single one of the deaths in Iraq through violence and through war-imposed infrastructure decay is an outrage.
The Daily Telegraph (London) has an interesting twist on the story. Colin Freeman writes there that Al-Khal, also known as Nour Weidi,

    has told investigators from her hospital bed that Mr Vincent planned to marry her so she could settle in the United States.

That sounds quite instrumental and non-romantic, doesn’t it?
The case is being investigated in the first instance by Iraqi investigators; but they reportedly have a lot of help from US and British investigators. I’m guessing it was a British investigator who was Freeman’s main source for this story?
He writes:

    “There is a straight-line connection that people have drawn between Steven Vincent criticising the Iraq police and therefore being murdered,” said one investigator.
    “But from the evidence so far, including accounts we have had from the Iraqi interpreter, that is not the immediate conclusion we are drawing. It appears to be quite a complex case.
    “There is the possibility that this was an attempted ‘honour killing’, related in some way to the relationship he had with his interpreter. But it does not fit the pattern of honour killings as it is usually the woman who dies.”
    Mr Vincent, 49, a former art critic who turned to journalism after witnessing the September 11 attacks, had been married to his American wife for 13 years. She is understood to have been aware of his plans to marry Ms Weidi for visa purposes.

Over at The Sunday Times (London) Tony Allen-Mills has some more (and more nuanced) speculation about the role that Vincent’s relationship with Weidi/Khal (also known as Nooriya Tuaiz) may have played in his murder:

    All of these security sources commented that whatever Vincent may have written was unlikely to have offended local sensitivities as much as his relationship with Tuaiz.

54 thoughts on “Steven Vincent plot thickens”

  1. And what is exactly the alleged conduct that soiled the honor of her family?
    The sexual angle is dismissed based on the visa motivation, and if it existed it surely wasn’t in public or in the blog. The polygamial angle is just fine as we learned that a husband is good for up to four wives. A brief lapse of abaya in a restaurant gets your companion killed and soils the family?
    Maybe the problem is the race or religion of the partner? Is that the elephant in the room that Helena does not name.
    Quest

  5. Vadim, there is not only no such Islamic practice as so-called “honour killing” it does not “predominate” in the Middle East, nor is it confined to that region. It is a found in some Middle Eastern regions, not all, and is found only in certain of the more backward elements of society.
    As for that charlatan Rafael Patai, best let him and his racist idiocies rest in peace in the dustbin of academia where they belong.

  6. Shirin, if you read my comment more carefully, you’ll have noticed I said explicitly that “honor killing isn’t an Islamic practice.” Please try to read more carefully. I also did not claim that it ‘predominated’ in the Middle East (nor the Mediterranean) but that it is found predominantly in the Middle East, which remains completely accurate. This is hardly the same thing as claiming it to be commonplace.
    There remains the issue of legal sanction:
    from my BBC link: “Under the existing law, people found guilty of committing honour killings often receive sentences as light as six months in prison.”
    from my Nikki Katz link: “In some countries such as Jordan, Morocco and Syria,

  7. ‎“The concept of ownership has turned women into a commodity which can be ‎exchanged, bought and sold.”‎
    Excuse me vadim, this is a carp….‎
    You talking about the women

  8. Even though Vincent was a bit of an adrenalin junkie, I respect his choice for going to Iraq, as opposed to all the 101st keyboard division that is all for pumping up the war but feel too much self-importantance to riskt their own life. His friends did advise him that the would get killed by going. He did write with some compassion about the insanity of the whole Iraq war enterprise, but ultimately his writing was handicapped by the belief that all the Iraqi’s had to do was understand how great it was to be an American and they would hand over the keys. It is sad that Vincent, being a White male republican has gotten a disproportionate amount of attention, compared to the 62 other journalists that have fallen.
    On honor killing, the west has had a similar defence for killing called Crime of Passion. It is surprising that the comments here suggest that honor killing is rare or a stereotype misconception of mid-east or mediteranian culture. If it is, then all the sexual torture at our gulags, inflicted on prisoners thought to be Islaamic is even more tragic, if that is imaginable. As wrong as Vincent was about mid-east culture, and as wrong as the neo-cons seem to have mis-calculated, I do think that the tactic of destroying reputations by photographing rapes and homosexual acts, were borne out of some understanding of how horrible losing ones honor would be to the prisoners. Yes, I think they got that part right , but the geniuses forgot how unreliable torture is; the victims always break and tell the torturers anything thay want to hear; rarely does it provide useful info.

  9. Vadim,
    1. Kindly refrain from using your patronizing lecture tone with me. It does not encourage me to believe you are interested in any kind of real dialogue.
    I did indeed read what you wrote carefully enough to see your acknowledgement that honour killing is not an islamic practice. It is in fact commpletely un-islamic. You also attributed to me the “claim” that so-called honour killing is a predominantly Middle Eastern practice. I have made no such claim, nor would I. “Honour killing” or some recognizable variant is in fact very widespread, and is found in many cultures, including western cultures.
    2. Not one of your sources is acceptable as a credible reference on sociological issues of any kind, let alone issues pertaining to the Middle East. Nikki Katz is neither a sociologist nor an expert on the Middle East, but is an aerospace engineer for heaven’s sake, and thinks having been a woman all her life is all the qualifications she needs. Bully for her for being a lifelong woman, and having an interest in women’s issues, but that does not make her a citable expert.
    3. Some variant of the “honour killing” defense is considered a mitigating factor in many legal systems, eastern and western.
    4. “the view of women as property with no rights of their own is deeply rooted in Islamic culture”
    What utter rubbish! The view of women as property is first of all about as unislamic as you can get when it comes to women. Further, the view of women as property is very widespread worldwide, has occurred throughout history and continues to occur in most cultures and religions, if not all, and is not at all unheard of in the white Christian USA. The view of women’s status, rights, and freedoms does in fact vary according to the socio-economic/education level of the family. The more educated and affluent a family is the less likely women are to be viewed as property. That is true in every culture.

  10. Shirin,
    1.) Kindly refrain from attributing comments to me that I didn’t make. Then maybe my tone won’t seem so patronising.
    2.) what are your ‘sociological credentials’ and why should they have any bearing at all on this conversation? Are you contesting the sterile fact that honor killings are legally sanctioned in Syria, Morocco and Jordan? Beyond this Ms. Katz’ sociological credentials are 100% irrelevant. I didn’t cite her expertise or her opinion. Your comment is an argument to irrelevant authority, a particularly obnoxious rhetorical fallacy. Try to think a little before you write, ok?
    The source of my second quotation (a genuine opinion by a bona fide academic) in case you didn’t notice is “Tahira Shahid Khan, a professor specializing in women’s issues at the Aga Khan University in Pakistan.” here’s her bio:
    http://www.aku.edu/ied/people/profiles/tk.shtml
    So you know, she has a PhD in international affairs from University of Denver. Her areas of specialization are International Politics and Women and Politics in South Asia. And of course she lives and teaches in Pakistan full time. I suppose those sociological & biographical credentials aren’t impressive enough? You must be very well schooled indeed.
    3.) Some variant of the “honour killing” defense is considered a mitigating factor in many legal systems, eastern and western. Name one US or EU law or legal finding illustrating this outrageous claim. A single statute or any piece of case law will suffice. Did you even read the BBC piece? 6 months for murder! This is written into Jordanian law for heaven’s sake. The pakistani laws legitimising ‘karo-kari’ are far more barbaric, don’t worry. there one may serve no jail time at all.
    The killings bring to 12 the number of women reported killed for reasons of “family honour” in Jordan this year, the Jordan Times says.
    Under the existing law, people found guilty of committing honour killings often receive sentences as light as six months in prison.
    4.) Since women have been viewed as property in every culture surely islamic culture is no exception and the claim is completely accurate. Meanwhile we are left to wonder what these cases have in common:
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22honor+killing%22+site%3Anews.bbc.co.uk&btnG=Search
    …since surely Islam (or millions of people’s conception thereof) is completely irrelevant according to shirin’s expert analysis.
    bbc: “The Pakistan government has allied with Islamists to reject a bill which sought to strengthen the law against the practice of “honour killing”.
    The parliament rejected the bill by a majority vote on Tuesday, declaring it to be un-Islamic. ” I think Shirin that you should have some words with them about the true meaning of Islam. They clearly didn’t get the memo.

  11. ‎“The Pakistan government has allied with Islamists to reject a bill”
    “The parliament rejected the bill by a majority vote on Tuesday”
    ‎ Is it that the democracy taught by you and Britts for the Pakistani Vadim?‎
    Is there different types of democracies Vadim? ‎
    I don

  13. Vadim,
    I agree with you that there are too many variants of the ‘other’ that have no basis in fact, and lead to stereotyping at best and genocide at worst. The west has a criminal defense that was used called Crime of Passion, which seems similar to the concept of honor killing. Usually the people who have power and their piers are the only ones that get away with it.

  14. 1. It is not necessary for me to have “sociological credentials” in order to recognize that an aeronautical engineer whose only qualification is having been a woman all her life is not an authority on life for Middle Eastern women. I at least have the advantage of having experienced a woman’s life in the Middle East.
    2. One does not need “sociological credentials” ot recognize utter nonsense when one hears it. The possession of a position in academia hardly exempts a person from talking nonsense, as anyone knows who has spent any time at all listening to academics. Tahira Shahid Khan’s statement that “the view of women as property with no rights of their own is deeply rooted in Islamic culture” is pure rubbish no matter who says it or what degrees and position they hold. It is, for starters, the exact antithesis of Islamic principles and teaching. More to the point, while it occurs in predominantly Muslim societies (as it does in virtually every society), it is far from universal, and varies greatly from region to region, family to family, and from one social stratum to the next. Those are not the characteristics of “deeply rooted” cultural phenomena.
    3. I believe someone has already cited the “crime of passion” defense which has been used very effectively in the United States by men who have killed their wives or girfriends for real or imagined unfaithfulness. The traditional legal treatment of spousal abuse, up to and including murder, and the legal treatment of severely battered women who kill their abusers are also cases in point.
    4. “Since women have been viewed as property in every culture surely islamic culture is no exception and the claim is completely accurate.”
    The claim was that the view of women as property is “deeply rooted in Islamic culture”. The fact that there are elements of virtually every society, including the various Islamic ones, in which women are viewed as property does not change the fact that this claim is utter rubbish.
    “I think Shirin that you should have some words with them about the true meaning of Islam. They clearly didn’t get the memo.”
    All they have to do is read the Qur’an. It’s all right there.

  15. Shirin,
    One point that you may have wrong here
    and the legal treatment of severely battered women who kill their abusers are also cases in point.
    Is that these women are usually given the harshest sentences. Men who murder their women in a fit of rage, even if serious abuse has been going on for a long time, are often given light sentences, based on no premeditation, kinda like a crime of passion. Women, on the other hand, who are abused for many years and finally strike back by murdering their men, are most often convicted of premeditated murder, and go to jail for a long, long time. Pretty sick; some may think this sentencing disparity would be found only in a really backward country. Oh, now the President of US can decide that some poeple are less than human. As sub humans these non persons can be jailed and tortured with no evidence or trial. The new sub humans are called Enemy Combatants. It should come as no surprise that power corrupts

  16. “All they have to do is read the Qur’an. It’s all right there”……..
    And there…right there, in that sentence, we see it all.
    Same with Bush….he just changes the Qur’an to the Bible…..
    Its all right there folks…its all right there. Yes, it SURE is. All the answers in one book. That’s some book

  17. “The new sub humans are called Enemy Combatants.”
    Interesting that 700 imprisoned ‘enemy combatants’ are more interesting, human-rights-wise than 700+ women killed every year (with state sanction) in Pakistan for “disgracing” their male relatives. That’s a regional problem, totally insignificant, none of my business. You clearly have your priorities straight. I’ll have to remember that phrase “it’s none of your business” since it has such broad application in the spheres of human rights and international law. You should get used to hearing it thrown back at you.
    Men who murder their women in a fit of rage, even if serious abuse has been going on for a long time, are often given light sentences, based on no premeditation
    “Often given light sentences????” What on earth are you talking about???? This is a point-blank falsehood. “Rubbish!” as Shirin might say. Cite any precedent or any statute. This claim could only be articulated by someone who has never set foot in a US criminal court and knows nothing about US criminal law.
    which brings us to :
    is pure rubbish no matter who says it or what degrees and position they hold
    then why the fixation with Ms. Katz’ academic qualifications? Her comment wasn’t an opinion but a factual statement. (we’re still waiting to hear your sociological credentials by the way.)
    Salah, New York gangs haven’t been much of a problem in the last century or so, nor has slavery. I’m sure if you visited New York, you’d emerge with a better opinion of this country in its modern form.
    re:Islam, defining the problem away as Shirin attempts is head-in-the-sand behavior. it would be ludicrous to claim that Christian fundamentalism had nothing to do with lynchings in the deep south, homophobia or the bombing of abortion clinics. “All they have to do is read the Bible, it’s all right there” just sounds dumb. Drawing attention to the religious motives for violence is not an indictment of the religion itself for pete’s sake!

  18. Vadim wrote :
    “Interesting that 700 imprisoned ‘enemy combatants’ are more interesting, human-rights-wise than 700+ women killed every year (with state sanction)”
    Each human is equally interesting, each of the women killed of course, but each of the Guantanamo prisonners as well. The difference is that Pakistan doesn’t pretend to be a model for the others. US does. If she wants to impose her standards to the rest of the world (which in itself is none of her business), at least she should be able to act up to her own standards, which she doesn’t. Do you believe that other countries aren’t intelligent enough to see the double standards applied ? US has become a rogue state and is a destabilization factor in the world now. Before preaching to the rest of the world, she should first sweep the dirt in front of her own door.
    The honor killing or passional crime mitigations are a facts of patriarchal societies, whether islamic or not. It’s not easy to differentiate what is due to traditional customs and what it due to religion. Judeo-Christianism is just as patriarchal as other religions in the world.

  20. If she wants to impose her standards to the rest of the world
    ‘honor killings’ have nothing to do with “US standards” but ordinary human rights. US hypocrisy or inadequacy has nothing to do with honor killings in Pakistan. The mentality that the US is the center of all things good and bad is not an attitude shared by people interested in finding solutions to the world’s problems.
    Judeo-Christianism is just as patriarchal as other religions in the world.
    that’s right, and any Christian making excuses for laws excusing honor killing and/or rape deserves a smack.
    Before preaching to the rest of the world, she should first sweep the dirt in front of her own door.
    Sorry, but the US is not perfect and never will be. This premise is both unfalsifiable and tu quoque ie a fallacy.

  21. ‎”I’m sure if you visited New York, you’d emerge with a better opinion of this country ‎in its modern form”‎
    I don’t need to, I see it on my land from my home in my yes, they came to me I saw ‎how are they modern!!!‎

  22. killing 100,000 innocent
    even if it were true, Saddam killed more, the UN killed far more. See where that tu quoque gets you? politics is not a beauty pageant where anthropomorphized governments compete for ‘most virtuous’ [much less ‘most consistent.’]

  23. vadim
    even if it were true, Saddam killed more/i>
    I think you lost your mind. is it Saddam or Hitler give you the right to kill?
    what is the diffrence if you kill 1 or 10, your are a killer like them.

  24. “these women are usually given the harshest sentences. Men who murder their women in a fit of rage, even if serious abuse has been going on for a long time, are often given light sentences”
    And that was exactly my point. Sorry I did not make it more clear.

  25. the UN killed far more [than 100,000]
    Vadim, that is a terrible blood slander. Your statements here are becoming increasingly bizarre, in general.
    As a U.S. citizen I have a direct responsibility for the behavior of my government (and an indirect one for that of those it supports.) So yes, I am extremely concerned about all the losses– of Iraqis and of others– that have stemmed from the decisin to launch this terrible war.
    Also, anyone who lives in New York would find your statement that gangs haven’t been much of a problem there for the last century quite outrageous.
    Please remember (1) that the point of this blog is to explore elements of reality and (2) that commenters should strive to be courteous and helpful.

  26. Jonst,
    Where, please, did I say all the answers are in the Qur’an? As should have been perfectly clear I was referring to one thing and one thing only, and that is whether or not in Islam women are considered to be property. The answer to that question along with other questions about what Vadim calls “the true meaning of Islam” is indeed in the Qur’an.

  27. Wow.. read that The Mayor of Baghdad has been deposed. He was an engineer without party affiliation and not in his office at that time. The new mayor is a member of the Badr brigades, a militia linked to the SCIRI. The elected council chief supported that move. Trying to minimize it, he said he was just accompanied by his bodyguards and trying to apply law. He was in a legal feud against the former mayor.

  28. Helena, the comment that the US killed 100,000 is a blood slander. It is a false statistic cited by people who are more interested in slighting the US than with sterile appraisal of fact. Another sterile fact is that UN-implemented sanctions killed well more than this amount . See here for a fair appraisal of the actual count:
    http://www.reason.com/0203/fe.mw.the.shtml
    This terrible war was launched in part to counter the need for crippling sanctions that realistically killed hundreds of thousands. You seem unwilling or unable to engage this simple fact. Salah seems not to understand why removing sanctions was not an option and why war was viewed as a less catastrophic alternative.
    re: gangs, I’ve lived in New York almost my entire life and have yet to encounter a single gang or gang member. Salah’s remarks about gangs could only have come from someone who has never visited the city and whose impressions of NYC come from the cinema.
    re: “courteous and helpful,” “elements of reality”
    Salah: “do you think that people ‎believe in your crap.”
    This in a discussion about honor killing where I seem to be the only one taking the practice seriously. Do you take the practice seriously, Helena? I’m really curious. Because Shirin and Salah don’t, it seems. They see fit to compare it to “crimes of passion” that allegedly occur all the time in the US and that yield 6 month sentences for wife murderers. Do you find this characterisation of the US justice system accurate and realistic? Shirin seems to think that honor killings have nothing to do with Islam because her definition of Islam excludes honor killings. Do you find this mode of argumentation persuasive and realistic?
    you: Your statements here are becoming increasingly bizarre, in general.
    you: Try thinking a bit before you write, maybe?
    Salah: “I think you lost your mind. “
    Shirin: “This is crap.”
    Salah: “do you think that people ‎believe in your crap.”
    Are these comments meant to be courteous or helpful, Ms. Cobban? Your double standard in this forum is appalling.

  29. ‎”who has never visited the city and whose impressions of NYC come from the ‎cinema.”‎
    You are wrong, it

  30. “This terrible war was launched in part to counter the need for crippling sanctions that realistically killed hundreds of thousands.”
    What complete manufactured rubbish! Countering the “need” for sanctions had absolutely notning to do with launching this war of aggression. I don’t think even the mendacious Bushies have made this claim.

  31. Salah,
    There is a simple reality test to gauge how bad the US really is against whatever your friends or mosques tell you. Just compare the number of Arabs immigrating to the US against the number of Americans emigrating to Arab countries. Res no verba.
    Q.

  32. “I don’t think even the mendacious Bushies have made this claim.”
    You don’t? Perhaps this is why your critiques are so wildly off-mark; you apparently have never bothered to read a press release or public statement from the White House. Here are several to get you started:
    “Saddam’s defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding the disarmament of his nuclear, chemical, biological, and long-range missile capacity has led to sanctions on Iraq and has undermined the authority of the U.N.
    …
    All Iraqis should share the wealth generated by their national economy. We will seek a swift end to international sanctions, and support an international reconstruction program to help Iraq achieve real prosperity and reintegrate into the global community.
    GWB – 3/03
    “The regime that the sanctions were directed against no longer rules Iraq. And no country in good conscience can support using sanctions to hold back the hopes of the Iraqi people.”
    GWB – 5/03
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/ogc/apparatus/suffering.html

  33. Well, Vadim, as is often the case, what your provided does not support your claim. Neither of the quotes you provided remotely constitutes a claim that the war was launched to “counter the need for crippling sanctions”. What you have provided is just the usual White House rhetoric, in fact.
    ““Saddam’s defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding the disarmament of his nuclear, chemical, biological, and long-range missile capacity has led to sanctions on Iraq”
    This is not factual. What led to sanctions on Iraq was Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. The sanctions were continued after Iraq was expelled from Kuwait because the U.S. insisted that they should continue. The U.S. did insist that the sanctions be tied to “disarmament”, but what that actually meant was never really defined, and the U.S. kept moving the gaol post until finally they made it clear that it would only consider lifting the sanctions if Saddam were no longer in power.
    And of course, as many of us knew all along, and as everyone should know by now, Saddam had in fact disarmed by the mid-’90’s.
    “and has undermined the authority of the U.N.”
    That is hilarious coming from the administration that has done more to undermine the authority of the U.N. than everyone else put together. (And then there is Israel which has never complied with any of the tens of resolutions against it, not counting the tens of resolutions against Israel that the U.S. has vetoed. But I guess that is not undermining the authority of the U.N.)
    “All Iraqis should share the wealth generated by their national economy.”
    Typical meaningless political rhetoric. All Iraqis used to share the wealth generated by their “national economy” (i.e. oil). That was one of the positives the Ba`th party brought in the ’70’s and first half of the ’80’s. Now, of course, under the Bush administration, it is not the Iraqi people, but American corporations and corrupt officials who are benefitting from Iraqi money.
    “We will seek a swift end to international sanctions…”
    Well, of course! As long as the sanctions were in place the Bush administration could not sell Iraq’s oil to pay for all those generous contracts it awarded to American corporations for the so-called “reconstruction”.
    “support an international reconstruction program to help Iraq achieve real prosperity and reintegrate into the global community.”
    More political rhetoric.

  34. Oops – I forgot one:
    “The regime that the sanctions were directed against no longer rules Iraq. And no country in good conscience can support using sanctions to hold back the hopes of the Iraqi people.”
    Translation: As long as the sanctions are in place we cannot sell oil at the rate we hope to, and as we have stated numerous times, we plan for Iraqi oil to pay for this war and is aftermath – so, let’s get those sanctions lifted!
    As for the hopes of the Iraqi people, if that had been even remotely a factor, then Iraqi people and not American politicians would have been the ones making the decisions for Iraq’s future. The reality was that the Bush administration did everything it could to keep any and all decision making out of the hands of Iraqis.
    And I repeat, Vadim, that there is nothing in any of these quotes that remotely constitutes a claim that the war was launched in any part to “counter the need for crippling sanctions”.

  35. Shirin, I didn’t ask for a line item critique of what you would obviously dismiss out of hand as poppycock, rubbish, tommyrot etc. The simple fact is that sanctions figured into many administration remarks addressing the need for war whether or not you found them credible or sincere.
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/ogc/apparatus/suffering.html
    Is your claim that documents like this were not part of the argument for war at all? That’s an odd position.
    One more thing; Salah, properly informed critiques of US social (& foreign) policy should clearly not be off-limits to foreigners. Perspectives of outsiders obviously should be encouraged. If you think there is a US law in place that encourages gang warfare or honor killing, by all means let’s hear about it and how you think US citizens ought to correct it. Shirin and Christiane haven’t come up with anything concrete; heat-of-passion homicides are just not excused with slaps on the wrist in the USA, let alone ‘often.’ Honor crimes are not enshrined in US law. If they were I’d have no problem admitting the evilness of such laws. You would not find me saying “Country X is worse!” or “It’s none of your business!” or “That happens everywhere!”

  36. Vadim, try to understand that I do not give a damn what you asked for. I write what I choose to write.
    In none of your examples was the Bush administration connecting the sanctions with the “need for war”. What you have provided is something quite different from that. However, this is really a side issue. Regardless of whether the Bush administration tried to use it in connection with the “need for war”, ending the sanctions was not a reason for attacking Iraq.

  37. Vadim, try to understand that I do not give a damn what you asked for.
    Not so courteous or helpful. I try to engage the points others have made when possible.
    In 1990, after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime’s compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq’s people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.
    -Bush on 10/02, in his speech to the UN asking for support ending Hussein’s regime. Whether insincere poppycock or not, indisputably part of the ‘case for war.’
    I can cite hundreds more comments like this by Bush and other admin officials, but I’m worried that none of it could be considered part of the ‘case for war’ under Shirin’s increasingly stringent terms.

  38. Vadim,
    I am more inclined to be courteous and helpful toward those who respond in kind.
    1. Nothing in the excerpt you provided supports your claim that ending the sanctions was part of the reason for launching the war on Iraq. In fact, there is not a syllable in the excerpt about ending the sanctions at all.
    2. Regardless of what Bush may or may not have said in any of his speeches (and so far you have not provided any statement that even hints that ending the sanctions was a reason for launching the war), ending the sanctions was never one of the reasons for the war.
    Please come up with something that actually says what you claim it says, or let’s end this exchange which has become a boring waste of time.

  39. …or let’s end this exchange which has become a boring waste of time.
    Finally, something upon which we can agree.

  42. Vadim- Your cultural bias sticks out like a sore thumb. Your comments can be reduced to something like my culture is obviously more civilized then yours, a superior position with facts and accusations at your fingertips. Many can see, through your posts, the savagery that lies at the root of your culture, and lack of compassion. Steve Vincent sadly lost his life due to a similar type of blindness, although he at least, seemed to occasionally question his position.

  43. Hey Vadim – hang in there. This blog needs some intelligent, dissenting voices, and you are one. Not that I agree with you or anything. What happened to that David fella?

  44. Squeaky, unlike yourself just now I haven’t called any culture ‘savage.’ But if savage has any meaning, the practice of honor killing fits that description, as savage in texas as it is in lahore. Describing it thus isn’t culturally insensitive, whereas trivialising or rationalising it is unconscionable. Defending its enshrinement in law anywhere on earth is neither a liberal nor fundamentally humane position.
    thanks john, apologies to all for taking up too much space on this thread.

  45. “Just compare the number of Arabs immigrating to the US against the number of Americans emigrating to Arab countries”
    Unfortunately there is no such immigration polices in Arab courtiers you know they ‎lived their for 5000 years so they don

  46. I really dont think that Stevens killing had anything to do with the fact that he wanted to marry Noor to get her out of Iraq. I think that if there was such a thing then they would have been very secretive about it , because if it was an honor killing as some might think her family would have tried to stop her in any way they can without causing this “scandelous problem” as it is considered by Iraqi families , families in Iraq do not need to hire gunmen to stop their daughters from doing anything !!!!! they would have tried maybe to keep her at home instead of letting her accompany a foreign journalist if they felt that she was threatening their “reputation ” but maybe things that Steven and Noor knew about the Religous parties in Barah caused this dreadful end .

  47. The killing made sense to me because of his detailed Sunday NYT op ed. After hearing about the romance angle, having been aquainted with Steven, I could him imagine trying to show the Iraqi’s a thing or two about American style romace. He was a bit macho and I could see him showing off.

  48. Raya,
    What you say makes a lot of sense based on how most Iraqi families are likely to behave. Furthermore, had it been a so-called “honour killing”, the main target would have been the Iraqi woman, which clearly appears not to have been the case.
    PS you have the same name as my daughter. 🙂

  49. Vadim,
    Concerning the UN killing more than 100’000 persons because of the sanctions, don’t you remember who was opposed to the lift of these sanctions ? The US, while the Europeans, especially the French where trying to end them, acknowledging that they were harming more the people than Saddam.

  51. Christiane- The ‘ousted’ mayor of Baghdad was an American puppet that held on to his six months longer that he was supposed to. SCIRI won the provincial elections Jan 30, and were entitled to chose the Baghdad Mayor. As implied by your link there was some sort of coup by the rabid fanatics, not true, but typical NYT et. al. post that tells a joke but leaves out the punchline.

  52. Christiane
    concerning the mayor of Baghdad , the organization that he ran (Baghdad Mayorality) I think its called …was so corrupted , he hardly did anything for the city . No water and if there was any it is neither treated nor purified ….and the smell of it is so bad you cant get yourself to wash your hand in it ” tap water that comes straight from the sewage ” raw sewage in the streets that in some neigbourhoods you have to close your nose and mouth so you dont become sick of the smell …garbage scattered here and there …its like living in a big dump . Im not saying that SCIRI had the right to do what they did there probably worse but people are fed up with these terrible conditions and personally I think that he will probably take the millions that he stole of the Iraqi money and go back to living in the UAE.
    ” Iwas elected. I had dreams. Then I was removed in a coup by gunmen. This is very bad. Acts like these set a dangerous precedent for a country that wants to be democratic,”
    sure he had dreams I bet of a couple more millions!!!!

  53. darmowy pracie @ darmowy pronoshow @ darmowy prostytutki @ darmowy prysznice @ darmowy puszczalskie @ darmowy randki @ darmowy reality @ darmowy rosjanki @ darmowy rozebrana @ darmowy rozepchane @ darmowy ruchac @ darmowy rzniecie @ darmowy sadomaso @ darmowy schadzka @ darmowy sekretarka @ darmowy seks @ darmowy seksolatki @ darmowy serwer @ darmowy sexbar @ darmowy sexisearch @ darmowy sexkotki @ darmowy sexmania @ darmowy sexolatki @ darmowy sexplozja @ darmowy sexserwer @ darmowy sikawka @ darmowy softcore @ darmowy spermodajki @ darmowy sranie @ darmowy studentki @ darmowy studia @ darmowy suka @ darmowy sutki @ darmowy szesnastolatki @ darmowy szmaty @ darmowy szparki @ darmowy szybko @ darmowy tanie @ darmowy toaleta @ darmowy towarzyskie @ darmowy ubikacje @ darmowy vagina @ darmowy viagry @ darmowy wakacje @ darmowy wczasy @ darmowy wiagra @ darmowy wibratorem @ darmowy women @ darmowy wyjebane @ darmowy wylechtane

Comments are closed.