.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Cry Me A Riverbend II

Sunday, November 13, 2005

My Response To Khalid

I made a series of posts at Secrets In Baghdad. in response to Khalid Jarrar's responses to me regarding his most recent post (Jeffery also commented on it today here). Khalid now monitors comments and blocked them giving excuses for doing so that were lies. Khalid says he now enjoys playing the dictator. Well, I don't say he is a dictator, but in order to illustrate the fecklessness of dictatorships, I'm posting my comments to him here:

Re: The Jordanian Newspaper's Report that the Bombing in Iraq killed American Forces
Has the newspaper issued a retraction and admitted that the evil insurgency in Iraq killed mostly Iraqis rather the evil Kaffirs? Or do they continue to erroneously report that the insurgency is mostly killing "occupiers". You fail to recognize that the reason Jordanians support the insurgency is BECAUSE the liked Saddam. In their case, support for the insurgency is NOTHING BUT love for Saddam in thier hearts. Just like Saddam's Orphans in Iraq.
Note: Dishonest Khalid did not respond to this.

Re: Salam Pax
Rather than address what Salam has said, you accuse him through his parents. However, UNLIKE YOU Salam was critical of Saddam before he was deposed, he was critical of him during the invasion, he was critical of him immediately afterwards, and he was critical of him ever since. He certainly didn't become an apologist for the US or the new Iraq government to do that as you would know if you read his early blog. Suggesting Salam Pax is an opportunist is either serious ignorance or an evil slur.

YOU on the other hand are Palestinian, and Palestinians DID receive benefits under Saddam that were not available to ordinary Iraqis.

YOU ALSO have given NO REASONS that make you glad Saddam was deposed...ever you haven't even mentioned Saddam's trial. That is why I say you are a Saddam apologist.
Note: Khalid promised to respond to my challenge for him to name three things that make him happy Saddam was deposed. In return, I promised to give three reasons I wish the US had not invaded Iraq. The LIAR Khalid has never fulfilled that that promise.

Re: Jeffrey
I think he is non-religious. Perhaps in YOUR understanding of your religion, YOU think gays should be beheaded. There is no reason to think Jeffrey would think that.
Then I wrote:

Khalid,
[you said:]
well i dont knwo if salam knows about this -well i hope not, otherwise he would be a fatter liar

You haven't shown a single way in which Salam Pax has lied. Even if he knew that that Jordanian newspaper had its head up its butt it would not be a lie to report what it said.

On the other hand, you stood spouting your "democratic rights" before a judge who you believe could be righteously murdered by an insurgent. So who is the real liar here??

I also wrote:

Khalid,

[Khalid said] "i talked (many times) about my opinion about kiling civillians on one hand and attacking police and national guard and the occupation troops on the other hand and the deference between them"

Unfortunately, you don't acknowledge that the same people organizing the one
are organizing the other as well.

Strange that--although you can unjustly differentiate between car bombs that kill police and those that kill civilians going to work--you are not willing to accept that harm to non-culpable people by the US forces, ING, and IP occurs because of the insurgency that targets civilians, civil servants, and utilities: who in short, are targeting any level of Iraqi society that can't get them first. They could have chosen to go after only "the occupiers" but early on discovered that would likely get themselves killed so they now hit mostly "soft" targets as this religious former Republican guard insurgent -who began organizing jihadists and Ba'athists under Saddam's orders- explains.

[Khalid said] i am just saying maybe, because if the goal of explosions is to kill civillians then the best place to go would be mecca mall for example, or Abdon mall, or any of the big malls in amman that has thousands of people in them with no security measurments at all

I think it is obvious that they wanted to kill innocents in places that were --what they ignorantly and wrongly thought to be-- American. Unfortunately (and this is the way capitalism generally works) those hotels with American names were owned by JORDANIANS. And it is typical that when your friends the terrorists attack "occupiers" they hurt mostly the ordinary people.
Why?
Because they are "are brain-less crazy men that just wake up
one day feeling like bombing themselves and killing others" because some evil
Saddam Orphan or al-Qaeda stooge told them it was a short-cut to Paradise.

The "Jordanian" as you call him is as much a Saddam Orphan as the former Republican Guard and Fedayeen Saddam that are aiding him. Saddam let him in, healed him, and sent him to the North of Iraq to conduct assassinations against Kurdish leaders where he couldn't touch them personally. There are no "good insurgents" and "bad insurgents". After the US leaves, whether the insurgents want Saddam to return or an Islamic caliphate, they know they will have to kill many many Iraqis to take control of Iraq. So they kill Iraqis now: ING, IP, their families, and ordinary people going to the wrong mosque.

By the way, Khalid, given your stated opinions about killing IP and ING and government officials, were the IP wrong to suspect you as a terrorist??

Khalid never answered this question. I wonder why??

This is some of Khalid's response:

Dear Cmar, you are about to face sentense of banning too, watch ( and wash) that mouth.you had some good point in the comments you posted, i deleted them all except one because they all had either bad language or false accusations to me. :)

Well as anyone can see now, I used no bad language. That was another Khalid (Saddam's Sausage Boy) Jarrar LIE.

As for false accusations? Khalid, say what those false accusations are and if they are false I will humbly apologize. I wouldn't want to smear the Jarrar good name anymore than what the Jarrars themselves have done already.

as for salam: he would be a liar cause he used the rumor about the newspaper to say that Jordanians love to see Iraqis being killed, and that is an unbelievably terrible lie, what does he want, an arab-arab general civil war?

No Khalid. An Arab-Arab civil war is what YOU want in Iraq after the US leaves and you have said so in effect. You don't really think the elected Iraqi government (or as you all it, "the Puppets") is going to be deposed without a fight do you?

Salam pointed out that in a recent poll Jordanians support suicide bombers in Iraq and Israel. The fact they their media consistently pretends that these attacks do not kill Iraqis is NO EXCUSE.

The fact is that Jordanian commentators immediately came out saying that the attack in Amman was reprehensible but human bombs in Iraq and Israel were great!

Salam Pax is not alone in his truth-telling. Hammorabi pointed this out as well. For you to excuse those Jordanian newspapers and Jordanian attitudes in general is reprehensible because YOU KNOW BETTER. (*cough*liar*cough)

as for the judge, when i said these thignsto him i was being sarcastic, totally, like: ( isnt this the crap you tell us all the time since the war? how come i am in prison for surfing the net then? ).i dont support killing judges or any civilian or any person that helps building the country positively. but i cleared that already haven't i? :) it's getting funny, maybe i should copy paste this part at the end of every post:) with a note "for Cmarii"

Hmm...did that judge...
[to whom you gave the following defense, when you were locked up in the hoose-gow for being a suspect terrorist,

"I was practicing my democratic right of viewing people’s opinion about a certain topic on a site that people visit from all the countries around the world to give their opinions"]
...know you were being "sarcastic"? Because if he didn't then it's not sarcasm...its a LIE.

It didn't seem "sarcastic" the way you described it. Its sounded desperate. (*cough*lying coward*cough*)

As for which Iraqis it is alright to kill, maybe you should clarify it again, because (despite what you say) I'm still having trouble pinning you down precisely except that the government officials, the Police, and the ING are PUPPETS.

So spell it out. Which of these Iraqis is it okay for the insurgents to kill, Khalid?

  • IP?
    -
  • ING?
    -
  • Government officials?
    -
  • Judges?? (If you answered yes to the three above, why not judges?)
    -
  • Children in restaurants?

I am hereby banning myself from commenting at Khalid's site. There is no point when he isn't even going to be honest about what he truly thinks.

14 Comments:

  • Khalid cannot be honest about what he truly thinks. Neither can Raed.

    If you sum up all of the positions they have taken on issues, you find that, strangely, they are always in agreement with the insurgents they claim not to support.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:50 PM  

  • CMAR2, I see you have begun to indulge yourself in throwing rubbish at your political opponents again.

    Take this for example:

    [cmar2] “In their case, support for the insurgency is NOTHING BUT love for Saddam in thier hearts.”

    I would venture to say that it is what Saddam stood for, rather than the man himself, which Jordanians admire. That is to say, they admired him for standing up to Israel and the US, and for supporting the Palestinians. Removing Hussein will not remove the causes of their antipathy towards the US.

    [cmar2] “However, UNLIKE YOU Salam was critical of Saddam before he was deposed, he was critical of him during the invasion, he was critical of him immediately afterwards, and he was critical of him ever since.”

    I believe that Khalid has already addressed this. Simply because he did not blog during this period, does not allow you to project your delusions of his intent on him.

    [cmar2] “YOU on the other hand are Palestinian, and Palestinians DID receive benefits under Saddam that were not available to ordinary Iraqis.”

    Huh? WTF does that mean? If you are not aware yet, Khalid’s family is well – off through the efforts of his evil CAPITALIST parents, and not through any Saddamite largesse. Could I postulate that you support the war because Americans are profiteering through the ‘reconstruction’ process, not to mention the underwriting of the strength of the dollar through petroleum? Would you be annoyed by this?

    [cmar2] “Khalid promised to respond to my challenge for him to name three things that make him happy Saddam was deposed. In return, I promised to give three reasons I wish the US had not invaded Iraq. The LIAR Khalid has never fulfilled that that promise.”

    That was unwise of Khalid to promise. On the OTHER hand, he is notoriously forgetful, to which I can testify, given that he owes me several emails :) Coming from you, such indignation is a little misplaced, since you promised to prove that Riverbend WAS a 100% Baathist, which you likewise failed to do.

    By Blogger Bruno, at 6:41 AM  

  • [cmar2] You haven't shown a single way in which Salam Pax has lied. Even if he knew that that Jordanian newspaper had its head up its butt it would not be a lie to report what it said

    Um, no. Salam said “Why is it OK if it is Iraqis dying and an atrocity if it is a Jordanian?” and added this as support: “And remember many Iraqis have not forgotten that there were Jordanian newspapers calling a Jordanian suicide bomber who did his “Jihad” in Iraq a Martyr and a Hero.”

    Khalid replied that this was not true, that (a) Jordanians do NOT celebrate the deaths of Iraqis and that (b) the newspaper had it wrong. Salam not only stated it incorrectly but also used the publically debunked news report as backup. Thus Khalid, strictly speaking is CORRECT, and that Salam is lying. Of course, the chance exists that Salam was not aware of this and Khalid generously allows for this possibility. You, cmarii, are WRONG.

    [cmarii] “On the other hand, you stood spouting your "democratic rights" before a judge who you believe could be righteously murdered by an insurgent.”

    Any substantiation here? Or are you just INVENTING things a la “Riverbend is a Baathist” story? You wouldn’t – gasp – be a LIAR, would you?

    [khalid] "i talked (many times) about my opinion about kiling civillians on one hand and attacking police and national guard and the occupation troops on the other hand and the deference between them"

    [cmarii] “Unfortunately, you don't acknowledge that the same people organizing the one
    are organizing the other as well. ”

    Any PROOF of this? Or is it yet another wild cmar2 allegation? In some cases (extremist Salafis, perhaps) it MIGHT be possible that they are killing both Iraqi civvies and collaborators. We have to ask ourselves: how representative are these people of the Resistance at large? Factoid: over 80 % of all attacks are directed at the CF themselves, the rest at collaborators, and a tiny percentage is civilians. Lots of civilians die because they don’t have tanks and body armour. Factoid # 2: The bulk of the resistance is made up of nationalist, non Salafis, and they recognise that once the Americans are gone, they will have to eliminate these radicals. So, you are wrong, cmarii. As usual.

    By Blogger Bruno, at 6:42 AM  

  • [himarii] “They could have chosen to go after only "the occupiers" but early on discovered that would likely get themselves killed so they now hit mostly "soft" targets”

    If the Chinese occupied the States, and made use of collaborators, how would YOU fight them? Would you allow them to set up their own alternative power structures and stooge police force unhindered? Or would you kill off all their translators, informants and facilitators, effectively ‘blinding’ them in the information war? Guerrilla struggles are won with information, not weapons. The real fight IS with the Iraqis that would collaborate, unfortunately. If you think a bit, you would understand the logic. No stooges = blind US Army arsing about the desert chasing shadows. That’s the truth.

    [khalid] i deleted them all except one because they all had either bad language or false accusations to me. :)
    [cmarii] Well as anyone can see now, I used no bad language.

    Of course, we have to take YOUR word for it …

    [cmarii] An Arab-Arab civil war is what YOU want in Iraq after the US leaves and you have said so in effect. You don't really think the elected Iraqi government (or as you all it, "the Puppets") is going to be deposed without a fight do you?

    Oh, gee, gosh, I don’t suppose that by INVADING Iraq and setting up collaborationist power structures the US MIGHT HAVE done something to promote inter-Arab strife? Not in cmarii’s world, I guess.

    As in Vietnam, though, when the US runs for it, you are going to be shocked at just how many of these “collaborators” are actually MOLES for the Resistance.

    By Blogger Bruno, at 6:42 AM  

  • Bruno,

    tsk tsk tsk. You just turn off your brain and let your fingers start tapping those keys, don't you?

    [khalid] i deleted them all except one because they all had either bad language or false accusations to me. :)
    [cmarii] Well as anyone can see now, I used no bad language.


    Of course, we have to take YOUR word for it …


    I guess so, since between Khalid and me, I'm the only one with a pair of balls to post the text of my comments. I guess you do have to take my word over that of that liar Khalid. Because I'm the only one coming to the table with evidence.

    I would venture to say that it is what Saddam stood for, rather than the man himself, which Jordanians admire. That is to say, they admired him for standing up to Israel and the US, and for supporting the Palestinians. Removing Hussein will not remove the causes of their antipathy towards the US.

    A distinction without a difference as even you can understand. I never met Ronald Reagan, but I supported him as POTUS. Obviously I supported his political positions only, but I would be dishonest (as dishonest as Khalid) to say "well, I didn't support him so much as what he stood for". Salam Pax offered as examples the testimonies of cab drivers of how sorry they are that Saddam was deposed. That's support for Saddam however you slice it. Naturally, deposing Saddam isn't going to make his supporters love the US.

    I don’t suppose that by INVADING Iraq and setting up collaborationist power structures...blah blah blah

    Well, since you have offered ZERO realistic alternative methods for Saddam to be deposed, I must presume you'd like to have seen Saddam and Sons still in power into perpetuity. It's just too bad that the Islamofascist and other of Saddam's Orphans didn't like the US's choice and have found killing people in mosques to be the way to express their differences. I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree on that.

    If the Chinese occupied the States, and made use of collaborators...blah blah blah

    Yawn. I got so sick of answering this retarded question over and over that I created a post to reference on these occasions.

    But I suppose what YOU would do is attack "soft targets" like people in restaurants, employees of the water sanitation department, power lines, polling stations, NGO workers, law enforcement officers and their families, right?

    Any PROOF [that the same people organizing the attacks on police are organizing attacks on police are organizing attacks on civilians as well]? Or is it yet another wild cmar2 allegation?

    Well, this Time article for starters. Granted it is probably insufficient proof for someone who doesn't think Riverbend's family were Ba'athists deeply ensconsed in Saddam's regime.

    The general working theory of the delusional is that the jihadists are foreigners working for Zarqawi, and they are blowing up cars and human bombs on the streets. Meanwhile, former Republican Guard members etc are organizing attacks on police, ING, and Coalition forces. This article reveals that the suicide bombers, jihadist groups, and former regime elements are being coordinated by...former regime elements; that they were told to do so almost as soon as Saddam's government fell and that they determined early that it was fruitless to try to attack US forces directly. There. Now you know.

    But that should have been apparent to anyone since we have found that Zarqawi's group has former Saddam regime members willing to go to Jordan to blow themselves up.

    [cmarii] “On the other hand, you stood spouting your "democratic rights" before a judge who you believe could be righteously murdered by an insurgent.”

    Any substantiation here? Or are you just INVENTING things a la “Riverbend is a Baathist” story? You wouldn’t – gasp – be a LIAR, would you?


    I remember Khalid's carefully parsed post about the morality of killing IP, ING, and government officials. Unfortunately, it is so carefully parsed that I can't easily find it anymore. But Khalid keeps assuring us it is out there *somewhere*, so I'm sure it is. After all, Khalid has shown himself so honest up til now. Tell you what. You find it and we'll discuss it, okay? It's there for anyone to see. I can't imagine why I'm so confused about it.

    But one caveat...If Khalid thinks killing IP, ING, and government reps (read "Puppets") is okay, why not judges?? While IP are capturing the "freedom fighters", the judges are sentencing them. Do you think Khalid's demur is honest?

    you promised to prove that Riverbend WAS a 100% Baathist

    I never promised any such thing. You're making it up. In fact, I never promised anything. But I did show why I believe (beyond any reasonable doubt) that her family were Ba'athists deeply ensconsed in Saddam's government.

    If you are not aware yet, Khalid’s family is well – off through the efforts of his evil CAPITALIST parents

    Errr...Capitalist PARENT. His father. His mother is a radical socialist if one can truly glean her political-economic viewpoint from her blog. But Khalid's father's business seems to have made its money from favorable connections with the Saddam regime (his website used host a picture of Dr. Germ reviewing the equipment). Also, as "Palestinians" (only Faiza was Iraqi) the Jarrars enjoyed many benefits unavailable to ordinary Iraqis.

    [Regarding the newspaper that had it wrong about the Iraqis murdered by the insurgents]

    My question was...did the newspaper retract the story and publicly change its tune regarding the insurgents. Did proclaim "To Hell With the Insurgents!" as Jordanians are doing now? If it didn't do either or both, it makes no difference as to Salam's proof.

    But you can nuance the circumstances of the event all you want, it doesn't make Salam Pax a liar either way.

    By Blogger CMAR II, at 12:33 PM  

  • CMARii


    Yawn. I got so sick of answering this retarded question over and over that I created a post to reference on these occasions.


    LOL, and well reasoned.

    btw How do you find the patients to endure predictable Brunhilda?

    Rubin

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:10 PM  

  • Heh heh heh,
    Bruno and I go way way way back. He's an important fixture here, and honestly I appreciate the time he spends on his comments.

    By Blogger CMAR II, at 5:40 AM  

  • CMAR II,

    just in case you haven't seen this. OH the ribaldry, old cheesecake LOL! ...from any epoc or culture.



    http://oldpostcards.com/page487.html

    Rubin

    By Blogger Rubin, at 1:37 AM  

  • CMAR II you may have already seen this material , just in case you haven't..

    al Qaeda/ Saddam / Iraq


    http://www.papadoc.net/WoW/ConnectionbetweenAlQuedaandSaddam.htm#Iraqs%
    20Tie%20to%20Al-Qaeda%20Terrorists%20Airline%20Hijackings

    http://www.papadoc.net/WoW/ConnectionbetweenAlQuedaandSaddam.htm


    http://www.securitywatchtower.com/quoteshayes.html

    http://63.247.134.60/~pobbs/archives/002453saddams_ties_to_al_queda_an_interview_with_sam_pender_part_one.html

    By Blogger Rubin, at 5:46 AM  

  • THAT was the longest piece of SLUR I have ever read. Could you spend any more of your life slogging off other people to make yourself feel better?

    Get the fuck off it and go do something worth-while. Instead of trying to destroy what others are building, why dont you go build something of your own.

    Your 2 blogs are pathetic and looked down upon by most of the people who read them! I only read them because it is an easy way to find out what Iraqi bloggers have been updating their blogs because you & yours have nothing better to do than slag off everything they say!

    I admit, you half-say some nice things & compliments when something really touches you like in Baghdad Treasures' comments section about Jill Caroll, and if you spent more time doing this and making suggestions rather than accusations there would be a whole lot more progress on all fronts, and a lot less distraction & anger.

    Take a fucking chill pill and just write you own opinions without vilifying others!

    Pce

    By Blogger olivebranch, at 5:57 AM  

  • Olivebranch,

    I consider a slur to be saying something that's not true. Alas, that's not the case here. What shall I do when my experience with Khalid is self-evidently vilifying? Khalid lies. He lies about what he says, what he believes, and about what people write in his comments. Is that my fault?

    This blog has pretty much evolved into a diary of my contact with Iraqi bloggers. Most recently I've had most contact with the Jarrar boys. So whateryagonna do?

    I'm glad you find IBC useful, though. :)

    By Blogger CMAR II, at 8:05 AM  

  • I am very disappointed in you CMAR II. This post only shows your ignorance and how little you understand Khalid. I have had many discussions with Khalid, and he once spilled his grief to me about the falling out between Salam and brother. It genuinely upset him I think, you know as well as I that Khalid does not like discord, he is a peaceful well meaning person and fairly open-minded in my opinion. I was very surprised to read this exchange because as far as I am aware Khalid has made an effort to maintain contact where his brother and Salam perhaps have not. It's Khalids way, he tries to build bridges between his friends when they fall-out. I've seen it more then once. He might not agree with some of Salams's ideas but so what, that's his business and in truth Salam probably does not agree with some of Khalids ideas either. Why should they? The point is that Khalid makes an effort not to create conflict when he knows his friends have made different life-style choices. He gets on with his life, and he lets others get on with theirs. I can only assume that you have made a longstanding and deliberate effort to exacerbate this reaction from him, because I think he may have felt at one stage that Salam was a member of his family.

    I remain anonymous.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:57 AM  

  • Hmmm...I don't see much grief in Khalid's discussion with me of Salam Pax's falling out with the hypocrit Raed. Only hostility. Salam Pax's falling out with Raed justifies my high opinion of his reason. You can imagine that I manipulated him into saying what he said, but I did not. I have had "longstanding" discussions with Khalid about Salam Pax. Khalid is a liar and he will lie and slur anyone who comes up against him if he deems it necessary.

    Whether you are surprised or not, he wrote what he wrote. Furthermore, I wrote exactly what is recorded here and "fair-minded" Khalid censored it and lied about its contents at his blog. Beware in your relations with Khalid. He is not an honest person. He is not the person you seem to think he is.

    By Blogger CMAR II, at 11:06 PM  

  • Actually CMAR II, I watched you engineer this whole exchange at the time. Who is not an honest person, hmm? You can tell all the fibs you like, but most people know you're just a stirrer looking for a reaction. The point is, CMAR II, everyone knows you are not the person you claim to be. You are just some no-node stuck out in loo-lah land, posting abuse and hoping someone bites.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:29 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home