Unwilling participants Posted by John on August 19, 2004, 7:02 pm Unwilling participants Iraqi soccer players angered by Bush campaign ads featuring team PATRAS, Greece -- Iraqi midfielder Salih Sadir scored a goal here on Wednesday night, setting off a rousing celebration among the 1,500 Iraqi soccer supporters at Pampeloponnisiako Stadium. Though Iraq -- the surprise team of the Olympics -- would lose to Morocco 2-1, it hardly mattered as the Iraqis won Group D with a 2-1 record and now face Australia in the quarterfinals on Sunday. Afterward, Sadir had a message for U.S. president George W. Bush, who is using the Iraqi Olympic team in his latest re-election campaign advertisements. In those spots, the flags of Iraq and Afghanistan appear as a narrator says, "At this Olympics there will be two more free nations -- and two fewer terrorist regimes." "Iraq as a team does not want Mr. Bush to use us for the presidential campaign," Sadir told SI.com through a translator, speaking calmly and directly. "He can find another way to advertise himself." Ahmed Manajid, who played as a midfielder on Wednesday, had an even stronger response when asked about Bush's TV advertisement. "How will he meet his god having slaughtered so many men and women?" Manajid told me. "He has committed so many crimes." The Bush campaign was contacted about the Iraqi soccer player's statements, but has yet to respond. To a man, members of the Iraqi Olympic delegation say they are glad that former Olympic committee head Uday Hussein, who was responsible for the serial torture of Iraqi athletes and was killed four months after the U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq in March 2003, is no longer in power. But they also find it offensive that Bush is using their team for his own gain when they do not support his administration's actions in Iraq. "My problems are not with the American people," says Iraqi soccer coach Adnan Hamad. "They are with what America has done in Iraq: destroy everything. The American army has killed so many people in Iraq. What is freedom when I go to the [national] stadium and there are shootings on the road?" At a speech in Beaverton, Ore., last Friday, Bush attached himself to the Iraqi soccer team after its opening-game upset of Portugal. "The image of the Iraqi soccer team playing in this Olympics, it's fantastic, isn't it?" Bush said. "It wouldn't have been free if the United States had not acted." Sadir, Wednesday's goal-scorer, used to be the star player for the professional soccer team in Najaf. In the city in which 20,000 fans used to fill the stadium and chant Sadir's name, U.S. and Iraqi forces have battled loyalists to rebel cleric Moktada al-Sadr for the past two weeks. Najaf lies in ruins. "I want the violence and the war to go away from the city," says Sadir, 21. "We don't wish for the presence of Americans in our country. We want them to go away." Manajid, 22, who nearly scored his own goal with a driven header on Wednesday, hails from the city of Fallujah. He says coalition forces killed Manajid's cousin, Omar Jabbar al-Aziz, who was fighting as an insurgent, and several of his friends. In fact, Manajid says, if he were not playing soccer he would "for sure" be fighting as part of the resistance. "I want to defend my home. If a stranger invades America and the people resist, does that mean they are terrorists?" Manajid says. "Everyone [in Fallujah] has been labeled a terrorist. These are all lies. Fallujah people are some of the best people in Iraq." Everyone agrees that Iraq's soccer team is one of the Olympics' most remarkable stories. If the Iraqis beat Australia on Saturday -- which is entirely possible, given their performance so far -- they would reach the semifinals. Three of the four semifinalists will earn medals, a prospect that seemed unthinkable for Iraq before this tournament. When the Games are over, though, Coach Hamad says, they will have to return home to a place where they fear walking the streets. "The war is not secure," says Hamad, 43. "Many people hate America now. The Americans have lost many people around the world--and that is what is happening in America also." Link: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/olympics/2004/writers/08/19/iraq/index.html?cnn=yes
Boy, you'd think it was the Americans who were killing the ones walking in the street... This story implies that "to a man" they resent the ads. However, the way they imply this is to in a leapfrog fashion to associate their collectiive, no-brainer relief that Uday is gone with a couple of guys expressing their resentment of their inclusion in Bush's campaign. The two are not connected so unanimity is not assured.
"Iraq as a team does not want Mr. Bush to use us for the presidential campaign," Sadir told SI.com through a translator, speaking calmly and directly. "He can find another way to advertise himself." What kind of head up the ass syntax game are you going to be playing this time Giddyup? Make me laugh today, I can see a "majority vote speculation" type argument in your future.
I just got through reading this at SI. I find it pretty telling that everyone on this team resents our presence in their communities and that they despise Bush using them for his self-promotion. Even more interesting:
Would you allow Allen Iverson to speak for the basketballers? The guy has no prerogative to speak for other people. Do you reckon the team did a straw poll? and appointed this guy? Of course you are going to see an argument of speculation. Do you have one iota of proof that it is anything else? You have one guy alleging to speak for the team. Who has ever said that everyone in Fallujah is a terrorist?
Giddy, are you still waiting for the Iraqis to shower us with flowers and candy, like Dick Cheneychickenhawk said they would?
Principles of Giddyup Logic 101: The fact that there might be nonexistent contrary evidence that you don't know about, have never heard of, and have no reason to suspect, is by itself enough to discredit anything The fact that a negative cannot be 100% disproven automatically disproves all contrapostives E-mails from friends of friends that are deliberately fabricated urban legends, designed to spread disinformation via the internet, should be posted on the internet, then immediately distanced and disclaimed.
Some have. Would you deny that? Talk to most soldiers back and they find the Iraqis to be very appreciative of what we've done over there.
zion: I find those remarks to indicate an ubsubstantiated transition. "To a man" they abhored Uday (how obvious is that?), yet the second part is simply worded "they" without the emphasis or proof of of to a man. They quote one, maybe two, guys who echo that sentiment. Why no official statement. I find that to be at the very least potentially misleading and probably just plain old misleading.
SamFisher logic 001: Take a single indication of a sentiment that you happen to agree with and generously award it universal application. BTW, I didn't say it "disproved" anything. I said it didn't prove anything-- specifically it didn't prove what the sloppy reporting replied. I find more justification for sloppy emails than sloppy reporting.
Nothing ever "proves" or "disproves" anything whenever the evidence weighs heavily against your unbacked assertions, as it frequently does, since you resort to a disingenuous burden of proof that exceeds that of the most stringent sciences. Example: You have no evidence that the Iraqi soccer team feels otherwise here. None, nada, zero, nothing. Furthermore, this is corroborated by the great weight of the evidence that indicates that Iraqis have an unfavorable opinion of US occupation in general in Bush in particular. I'm not going to bother linking to the various surveys, but it's true. But it doesn't matter; you make silly, unbacked implications and combined that with your hypertechnical semantic analysis, ("well, they didn't technically say "Huge stockpiles"') and make a poop sandwich of specious logic. Of course you find more justification in those silly emails you post than "sloppy reporting", which are deliberate fabrications (either that or the product of stupendously ignorant, illiterate individuals) because you hitched your horse to them a long time ago, and even though it keeps blowing up in your face, you've gone down with the ship too many times to admit defeat.
Sam: My you are a sore loser! Your problem is that you think everyone is the propogandist that you are. I post lots of things for discussion; you post your propoganda and, so, are suspicious of everything. I won't apologize for holding something that appears to be a news story to a higher standard than I do an email communication. It's all for consumption: some digestion and some vomiting. The "evidence" that you are so swayed by here is two opinions which are portrayed as being representative of the 20 or so team-members on the soccer team. I find that a stretch. Perhaps if it didn't agree with your pre-conception, you would too. The "unanimity" is certified by a casual phrase "to a man." Excuse me if I'm not blown away by the certainty of that. When the team issues a statement with all signatures then I might begin to believe this. In the meantime, I'll be looking for Allen Leavell to start speaking out on behalf of his teammates.
Life imitates art. Once again, you respond to charges of shooting yourself in the foot by putting a hand grenade in your shoe. As usual, your statements speak for themselves. I don't think there's anything more for me to add. Nice declaration of 'victory' by the way; I wondered when you were going to incorporate that weapon of mass distraction into your arsenal.
Here's what you wrote: "Nothing ever "proves" or "disproves" anything whenever the evidence weighs heavily against your unbacked assertions, as it frequently does, since you resort to a disingenuous burden of proof that exceeds that of the most stringent sciences. <b>The evidence weighing heavily here is one Iraqi soccer player expressing his opinion. Can someone help me with this burden?! That is the unbacked assertion: that his opining speaks for anyone other than himself. He claimed that "everybody" felt that way; is it really too much to ask for a tad more evidence that that is true?</b> Example: You have no evidence that the Iraqi soccer team feels otherwise here. None, nada, zero, nothing. Furthermore, this is corroborated by the great weight of the evidence that indicates that Iraqis have an unfavorable opinion of US occupation in general in Bush in particular. I'm not going to bother linking to the various surveys, but it's true. <b>No I don't, but that doesn't mean that some don't. All I challenged was that it has in no way been proven that they all do feel that way. Yes, it has been casually claimed, but even the lousiest scientist requires more proof than one man's claim to be speaking for a body. I have no doubt that many Iraqis do not favor Americans. I also have no doubt that many do. When and if the Americans leave, how many Iraqis will die then as the insurgents seek to regain control of the country. Oh good, another Taliban!</b> But it doesn't matter; you make silly, unbacked implications and combined that with your hypertechnical semantic analysis, ("well, they didn't technically say "Huge stockpiles"') and make a poop sandwich of specious logic. <b>At least I was forthcoming that my implications were unbacked. You take one uttering of one midfielder and make it a national testimony for all of Iraq.</b> Of course you find more justification in those silly emails you post than "sloppy reporting", which are deliberate fabrications (either that or the product of stupendously ignorant, illiterate individuals) because you hitched your horse to them a long time ago, and even though it keeps blowing up in your face, you've gone down with the ship too many times to admit defeat. <b>See my musings about your assumptions on propoganda. In the America I live in, it is okay to post just about anything for discussion, revelation, or evisceration. You don't like that. Why am I not surprised. I've hitched my horse to nothing. I post what is provocative and interesting to discuss. If you can't handle it... just stay out.</b>
