WAR: 300,000 Iraqis Protest US Occupation

In what can be only seen as a display of true Iraqi unity, over 300,000 citizens peacefully protested the American occupation on the streets of Iraq today in what police call the largest Anti-American protest since the fall of Baghdad two years ago.



Why are these people protesting? America has instilled freedom and democracy with this nation and now they are denouncing it?

And what's even more ironic is that the simple act of protesting and freely voicing their opinions is the most authentic form of freedom and democracy! Years ago, if the people decided to unite and protest against the rule of Saddam then the masses would undoubtedly be punished, tortured and killed.

But how can you blame them? As Lt. Ali Muhsin of the Iraqi National Guard said 'This is the first manifestation of freedom in Iraq'

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

A peaceful protest in Iraq. If that doesn't say it all, I don't know what else could. America undertook a very difficult job in Iraq, but it appears to me that despite the naysayers and the insurgents, something very positive is happening in there.

[edit on 05/4/10 by GradyPhilpott]

A peaceful protest in Iraq. If that doesn't say it all...something very positive is happening in there.

I agree. This is not a sign of uprising, not by any means. This is a sign of a proud nation displaying their freedom to disagree without being killed by their dictator moments later. Even though they are protesting against American occupation, it marks a great day in Iraq.

Already covered here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

What is sure:

...tens of thousands of Iraqis flooded central Baghdad on Saturday in what police called the largest anti-American protest since the fall of Baghdad, the capital, exactly two years ago.

What is not sure:

Some estimates put the number of protesters at 300,000.

Does it matter? Yes and no. Yes, because these people are free to demonstrate and voice their concerns, grievances, and opinions, whereas they could not do so under Saddam. No, because it is the Iraqi government that will determine when the US and Coalition leave.

Not to totally downplay this event, I think its great to see that the Iraqi people are free to demonstrate as they did.




seekerof

Eh. I really don't think Saddam would have stopped an anti-U.S. protest if he was still in power.

Using satellites and imaging technology (of the same order of quality as used by the US to enable Colin Powell to pinpoint with 100% accuracy the location of the major WMD stashes in Iraq prior to the US-led invasion), it is possible to discern 373,942 unique individuals in the protest march, but it is not possible to determine how many additional were under the camel costume four rows from the end on the left hand side. They may have been counter-insurgents.

Eh. I really don't think Saddam would have stopped an anti-U.S. protest if he was still in power.

The Iraqi people wouldn't have the freedom to protest anything unless orchestrated by Saddam Hussein and only supporting his political agenda. The Iraqi people are protesting against the residing power in the area. If this was the case years ago, the masses would have their tongues chopped off or their eyes gouged.

The Iraqi people wouldn't have the freedom to protest anything unless orchestrated by Saddam Hussein and only supporting his political agenda. The Iraqi people are protesting against the residing power in the area. If this was the case years ago, the masses would have their tongues chopped off or their eyes gouged.

How could I have forgotten about the maniacal violence of Saddam Hussein? It completely slipped my mind! I also forgot that he would have probably had to cut out the tongues and gouged out the eyes of several thousand more Iraqis that were alive or unmaimed from external violence prior to March 2003.

Absolutely right. How DARE the Iraqi people be upset about the tens of thousands of their civilian loved ones who were killed by U.S. military intervention? How DARE the Iraqi people blame US (of all people) for the ongoing military occupation of Iraq? How DARE they not appreciate democracy... after all WE use it so it MUST be the best form of government out there.

Where do these people get off wanting to be free from Sadaam, but then ALSO wanting to be free from the U.S.? Jeez... give a mouse a cookie...

Why those ungrateful little.... this'll be the last time we try to capitalize on-- I mean free a Middle Eastern Country, I'll tell you what!

Initially posted by MaskedAvatar
of the same order of quality as used by the US to enable Colin Powell to pinpoint with 100% accuracy the location of the major WMD stashes in Iraq prior to the US-led invasion

I'm sorry... help me out... I'm a little slow... Which WMD's were these again? I seemed to have missed them.

Guys, obviously if the Iraqi's are protesting they're feeling that, oximoronically, their freedom is being forced on them? I mean at least we, America, had the opporotunity to choose to rebel and win our freedom from England. (We also did well to suppress our own rebels during the Civil War... a war which was NOT about slavery) Remember when we ASKED the French to help us out? Good thing we hate each other now or we may still be owing them favors... can you imagine a country hating another after the second helped the first to be free? The hypocrisy...

"We don't do body counts"
-General Tommy Franks, US Central Command
-S

"As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know we don't know. "

[edit on 11-4-2005 by ServoHahn]

If 300,000 Iraqis rose up one day in protest I really doubt Saddam would have been able to stop them especially not with his post Gulf war army. This should not be written off as "signs of a free Iraq". This is not a sign that everything is going according to plan. This is only more proof that things could fall apart at any time over there.

Well they tried violently getting rid of the US, and now they're trying peacfully... if peaceful demonstrations dont work what do you think they'll do next? Go back to violence... its the most effective way in the Middle East to get your point across... unfortunate? Yes... but its the truth...

Sure its a sign of freedom tha they can protest like this... but how will the Us and the Iraqi Government respond? 3 options...

-Withdraw troops... this will show the Iraqi people that democracy works and the voice of the people is heard and taken into account.

-Keep the troops there and explain to the people why... this will show that the voice is heard, but not actually listened to (like most 'democratic' countries)

-Keep the troops there with no response to the protests... this will show that democracy is just a farce and no-one actually listens.

Which do you think will be the response?

Originally posted by Frith
Eh. I really don't think Saddam would have stopped an anti-U.S. protest if he was still in power.

But they were burning Saddam effigies as well. Just two years ago, that was a sure fire way to wake up dead in the desert.

Good for the Iraqis.

Speak loud and proud.

Originally posted by ServoHahn
Guys, obviously if the Iraqi's are protesting they're feeling that, oximoronically, their freedom is being forced on them? I mean at least we, America, had the opporotunity to choose to rebel and win our freedom from England. (We also did well to suppress our own rebels during the Civil War... a war which was NOT about slavery) Remember when we ASKED the French to help us out? Good thing we hate each other now or we may still be owing them favors... can you imagine a country hating another after the second helped the first to be free? The hypocrisy...

[edit on 11-4-2005 by ServoHahn]

Originally posted by ServoHahn
Guys, obviously if the Iraqi's are protesting they're feeling that, oximoronically, their freedom is being forced on them? I mean at least we, America, had the opporotunity to choose to rebel and win our freedom from England. (We also did well to suppress our own rebels during the Civil War... a war which was NOT about slavery) Remember when we ASKED the French to help us out? Good thing we hate each other now or we may still be owing them favors... can you imagine a country hating another after the second helped the first to be free? The hypocrisy...

[edit on 11-4-2005 by ServoHahn]

Shame on your history! Only 10% of Americans were in favor of the revolution against the British. That's 90% that was in favor of British rule.

You need to review the Civil War again. I Live in the South and was lead to believe the Civil War was not about Slavery. But re-read the history and you will see it WAS the major factor before and during the war. From both sides.

Originally posted by Qwas
Shame on your history! Only 10% of Americans were in favor of the revolution against the British. That's 90% that was in favor of British rule.

You need to review the Civil War again. I Live in the South and was lead to believe the Civil War was not about Slavery. But re-read the history and you will see it WAS the major factor before and during the war. From both sides.

Well, pardon my analogy if I was wrong but I have closer to 33 percent of Americans supported the revolution. Also, we all know there are loyalists... much like the "insugents: and "terrorists" that we continue to fight in Iraq... I would say that if you were an Englishman that supported the revolution you were an American, if you were of a different country (there were so many) and you supported the revolution you were American... but if you were an Englishman who didn't support the revolution you were... English? I could be wrong, but it makes sense. I mean, there had to be someone for Americans to rebel against, didn't there?

America was definately divided for many reasons, though if you want to look at American history you'll realize that there was a lot more state politics going on and a lot less national politics. Simple lack of frontier/coast to frontier/coast communication. The divide happened much like the most recent election... many didn't believe too much one way or another but you had to choose sides. Slavery was one of the reasons we had a divide yes, but slavery alone wouldn't have pushed America to the brink of civil war.

I know there are major differences between the American Revolution and the Iragi takeover but I DO think we're holding the people of Iraq to a double standard. I'm sure if you asked those protesters, they'd agree with me.
-S
P.S. Most of my family is Southern too. Props. I happen to be Californian but I've always been more of a devil's advocate than anything else... therefore liberal (at least I would think). I like to think of myself as on the fence... after all I wish California would have a lower influx of illegal immigrants (we're broke over here for goodness sake), And I beleive in heavier punishments for some crimes (like rape and abuse), but certainly not 9 years for spamming (thank you Virginia)!
-S

[edit on 11-4-2005 by ServoHahn]

App. 1/3 Americans suported the revolution, 1/3 were neutral and 1/3 were loyalist.

To the main topic - those demonstrations are organized by Sadr, because US soldiers killed some of his deputies 1 week ago (I think).


[edit on 11-4-2005 by longbow]

Originally posted by specialasianX
Well they tried violently getting rid of the US, and now they're trying peacfully... if peaceful demonstrations dont work what do you think they'll do next? Go back to violence... its the most effective way in the Middle East to get your point across... unfortunate? Yes... but its the truth...

Actually, they haven't. Those violently trying to get rid of the US aren't Iraqis but those who stand to capitalize of keeping Iraqis under the rule of Saddam. Thats a distinction we need to keep up with because there are those who'd like to think the insurgence are Iraqi Freedom fighters when in actuality, they are fighting the freedom of Iraq. I know you'd love to slip that one by us but I afraid we have to throw a flag on that play. Sorry.


Secondly, the Iraqis were also protesting terrorism and those insurgence from the posters I saw them carrying. It appears plainly that Iraq is ready to take the reigns and stand on their feet and want to do it without the US which is just what we had hoped for. Everyday we have to occupy Iraq cost us. The thought that you all think this is a negative for the US shows just how off the mark you are.

In fact, while you all are touting Iraq as a failure, the US government has began talks of withdrawing troops upon assertation of a strengthening Iraq miliatry and police force. I think you all had better rethink the issue of who wants to control Iraq. We want them to take control themselves asap! Our troops have jobs and families waiting for them. The insurgent terrorist are the ones wanting control.

The Iraqis wanted us there when they were despirate and we went. Now they want us to leave and we agree. Sounds like cooperation to me.

The big distinction you all need to make is that Syrians, Pakistanis, and Saudi terrorist are not Iraqis citizens anymore than the Us soldiers there. But, who is helping to rebuild the country and who is fighting to destroy it?

astrocreep, so none of the insurgents are iraqi? so all iraq's people support us it's just the other countries sending in people to fight us? Other countries are involved but to say there are no iraqi people that are insurgents is nuts. I'm not arguing that the insurgents are freedom fighters because they aren't you're right about that. But you want us to point out the insurgents aren't iraqi?

[edit on 11-4-2005 by Kramthenothing]

[edit on 11-4-2005 by Kramthenothing]

Highly unlikely since an insurgent is someone from outside..by the very definition of the word. No, I'm not saying every last person that wants the oppression of the Iraqi people isn't an Iraqi. We must remember that a few thousand people actually fared pretty well under Saddam and would likely love to see that regime retunr because they face accountability for their past actions.

For that one percent or so of the population who profited from killing and torture, I'd say the US really jacked it up for them. This does not make them "insurgent" because they were already there but it does not mean they have their country's best intentions at heart either...only their own...like Saddam.