It's been a while since last I've updated and I was actually intending to update, but haven't had the time or inclination to do so because I've been awfully busy lately. This is a must, however. This is what I had to say when I first read through the ITM post, and this is what I actually think about it.
Freedom of speech is nice, but freedom of lie isn't. Since the invasion people have been dying by gigantic figures, and if ITM doesn't see that in the hundreds of thousands of casualties, IRAQI casualties, then he is in need for an urget reality check. Never fancied Hussein, but people haven't been dying at such a rate then. And it takes either a naive kind of a person or a real idiot to actually believe that Americans/Coalition Forces came to Iraq only to "free us" and "look after our interests". Nobody would really believe that the United States would spend billions of dollars to free Iraqis for just nothing in return. Nobody buys the "White Man's Burden" or the "Democracy Protectors" cliches anymore. ITM himself doesn't. But I believe that all of his believes are subject to change according to his needs, and his most urgent for now is to get out of that hell he's living in. I can understand that, but as Miraj says..."Smart but low. Very low".
Now, judging by ITM's posts, he's neither naive nor an idiot. But it seems like he takes everybody else for an idiot. Some americans, who just happen to be republican redneck ignorants, believe that the war was for a good cause. Iraqis, in the other hand, don't buy that for the most part. Specially those inside, like ITM himself, who happen to know better just by living there. When an Iraqi blogger, whose blog is dedicated to naive americans, calls coalition forces "Our Allies" and "Our Friends" and starts talking about "Our accomplishments" and so on , it just wrong. It sounds like a pathetic effort to bring about more...I don't know, public support? Sympathizers? People who are willing to find a way to save "That brilliant mind" out of there? It's just wrong in the sense that it's so fake, so much of a lie that I bet my money that ITM himself doesn't buy it for real.
When a well-known blogger who also happens to be credible in the west tells a lie, it's awfully misleading to everybody who reads that lie. And it's misleading because now we have many americans, just as many who have been checking ITM, believing that we all think like that. There you go, an Iraqi living in Iraq and telling you that things will be just great, wouldn't that be your truth if you've had no clue? If there's anything to being a serious blogger as he is, and as I'm not, then it's that delicate matter of credibility. But I guess when you're really desperate, credibility is the least of your concerns.
Why does it bother me? Because it's a lie as I've explained. Because if I show it to any friend, they would believe it based on the fact that he's an Iraqi who lives in Iraq now. Because I, as well as many others, realize that it's no more than some serious American-Ass Kissing post. Because I'm wide aware that ITM himself doesn't believe in all of that anymore than he believes that Saddam Hussein was a hero. No, not an idiot and not a naive man. He's just a liar there.
ITM: Where you should go when you need to get your Timberlands as good as new after a long day hiking in the wilderness, but only if your passport is "occidental", preferably American. Everybody else? "Sorry, mo 5adem il 5alofokom".
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Thank Delilah!
Yeah Baby! I was mad at you, but not anymore.
Show em what you got! Put it where IT needs to be put.
Expose the facade.
thanks del, great post..
El Delilah, your words here were excellent. The truth needs to be told.
Thank you for your last post, Delilah.
Time to expose the two scoundrels for what they are.
It seems that you may have been a bit premature in calling ITM a liar. It appears that the Lancet Study was based on bad science.
The Lancet study only used 47 cluster points for their sample of 1,849 interviews. Doing a study based on interviews (as opposed to collecting actual data) on the number of people who died in a certain area is inherently unreliable, so you need to sample a really large number of people from a wide range of places in order to get a decent esitmate of the number of people who died. Iraq has over 28 million people and the Lancet Study talked to less than 2,000 Iraqis! As a comparison, when the United Nations did a similar survey of Iraq in 2004, they used 2,200 cluster points for a total sample of 21,688 people.
Aren't you guys just a tad bit offended that the people at Lancet tried to pass off such a shoddy piece of science as an acurate reflection your reality? You claim that ITM is selling his "lies" to susceptible Americans who believe everything he says. But aren't you guys guilty of doing the same thing? Of believing something just because it confirmed what you wanted to believe, even though it didn't have a firm basis in truth?
[fern] "It appears that the Lancet Study was based on bad science. The Lancet study only used 47 cluster points for their sample of 1,849 interviews."
And your point is ... ?
Fact: cluster sampling is an established technique for gathering data from dangerous areas and for making statistical extrapolations to indicate large trends. This method has been validated over and over in the medical field and in the fields of economics. Your opinion is based on bad science.
I'm offended that everybody and their dog has a worthless opinion on the Lancet study but nobody steps up to call for a larger survey on Iraqi mortality. The entire point of Burnham's research was to trigger an international study.
It seems that all sorts of people criticise the Lancet study, but when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is their pockets are suddenly very empty.
What are you scared of?
The truth?
Bye.
Z
شات عراقنا
دردشة عراقنا
جات عراقنا
عراقنا
شات كيكه
جات
دردشة عبدالله
شات العراق
منتدى عراقنا
منتدى دردشة عراقنا
Post a Comment