I ran into today's blogger again at Astresim where he left a comment. I was tempted to take a look at his new blog, and that I did. Pen name? Truth About Iraqis, also blog title, is an interesting name, though far from being real and quite irrelevant to both Truth and Iraqis. Articulate, coherent and a bit composed. But the blogger falls into an empty circle of exaggerated condemnation and hatred that is overstressed to a point where it feels like a forge, and that could have been justified otherwise.
His most recent post of August 7th, titled Iraq is Vietnam, and the atrocities are the same is obviously, and as title suggests, saying that Iraq is the modern-day Vietnam. He talks and talks about the similarities between Iraq and Vietnam though he's being too vague which suggests a number of things, one of which is that if he gets into too much detail, his theory will fall apart. He mentions three things that he finds similar, though even I can tell him that these are "common factors" to all wars in history and that it doesn't take a genius to realize that it's just another war. It doesn't make the three points any less significant, but he's made no discovery and he should have found some more distinguished points that haven't been all the same about wars since humans started having them, to back up his argument.
There are these bits of fake enthusiasm where his tendency to overstate things blows the whole thing. This is one of them:
"My, my. Nazis? Heck yeah, why should the US military be considered any better. No difference whatsoever. Nazis killed Jews and Slavs. US military kills, tortures and rapes
For a post that is mainly about comparing Iraq to Vietnam, that's redundant. For a post that's mentioning historical facts, it's just another mistake. The wall of his argument is made of glass, and he keeps throwing stones at it.
Another post that I found interesting was the June 30th, with this title Iraq, where opportunities for those looking to get ahead, make names for themselves or earn a few bucks are ripe. The title is too long, and one would think it's out of concern for Iraqis sake. For some reason after having read through the archive you get this feeling that the motive behind each post is seldom what it seems, and this one is not different.
He talks about all of these people who made, or rather stole, millions of dollars from Iraq. Iraqi politicians and clerics and "others", then American politicians, business men and of course USMC guys who got promotions after serving in Iraq, or in Haditha to be more specific. He does make a point there, that lots of people got rich out of Iraqi money, but the way he phrases things gives the impression that he's envious and spiteful about that. Having Oprah stuffed somewhere into the post was quite interesting, I guess he's got some issues when it comes to people who are either successful or VERY loaded. Perhaps what disturbed him most about the entire deal is the fact that he couldn't book himself a seat where a person like Muqtada managed booking. He sure is smarter than Muqtada, but the latter is more loaded.
This interesting paragraph is probably the only paragraph to find good and American included in the same phrase:
"I guess one day, a comprehensive study will reveal just how much was stolen and how much was actually rebuilt - beyond the fresh coat of paint on schools Iraqis allegedly never had before the invasion. I am assured that a few good American Samaritans will come on and publish a book which will reveal all. Too bad Oprah won't include it on her faux Reader's Club or whatever the hell that fat cow calls it"
His motives for writing are quite questionable, because he's just as enthusiastic as I would be if I were making commentaries for Eurosport, and that would be a real sham. He might still be a patriot after all, but he still doesn't sound like one, from his blog. I don't want to get into politics, but he doesn't seem to be liking anybody. I don't know why he's writing in the first place, but since Ron of Freedom Base suggested that people can be paid to write a certain way, I would say Truth About Iraqis could potentially flow into that category. He could be practicing his borrowed perspective in a blog before saying/submitting the actual thing, or he could be just of an unconvincing, lukewarm kind of an apathetic nature.
It wasn't a good read, and he really has to pick another name for his blog, more than any other blogger. He obviously isn't the average Iraqi to be calling himself one, he obviously isn't writing for Iraqis to read, so he might as well not mislead people. He's got to do some serious thinking and adopt a more genuine style of writing, and stop that ritual of going into empty circles. Anytime you pay that blog a visit, you know you're bound to find condemnation of some sort, and you can always predict who the center of attention is going to be. I could have understood his hatred towards Americans and Israelis et cetera, had he been writing normally. But he just had to deal with things in a way that his writing looks like made up emotions that are being decorated to look real, and it only makes him sound phony.