Comments on: CPT – Not Exactlty On America’s Side

By: Andy Aplikowski

Andy Aplikowski — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 05:40:19 +0000

First off, use your real email, spammer.

Second, they only got 30 pages out of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands of people who were murdered? Are they compiling “atrocities” (BS) of the insurgency? Have they investigated the beheadings for human rights violations? Have they openly condemned OBL & the Terrorists? Zaqari? Have they demanded anything other than a US pullout? Have they demanded that the Iranians and Syrians pullout?

If they are so against violence, why is it that they do not speak out about it everywhere? How about the savage brutality in Africa? Where is teh outrage from them over that? Or are they just following the US around, since that will get them the headlines that they need in order to stay relevant?

By: Rob

Rob — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 05:23:17 +0000

Actually, I’ve run some crude numerical analyses on the CPT archives available on their site.

If you do a Google search for “Saddam” or “Hussein,” you’ll generally get about 20-30 pages of links, generally to CPT reports of human rights abuses that occurred under the former dictator’s regime.

If you do a similar search for “Bush,” you get about 20 pages of links, generally to CPT reports of human rights abuses or broader foreign policy concerns tied to the American presidency. If you narrow that down to +Bush +Iraq, there are under 15 pages of links.

In other words, my conclusion is that the CPT coverage is fairly evenhanded (although media reports of that coverage may very well exhibit a greater bias). If anything, Bush comes off fairly lightly in their reports, at least when compared directly to Hussein.

Do they have a political agenda? Yes, but I believe it exhibits a greater degree of nuance than is being suggested here. They’re against violence of any sort, especially when perpetrated against innocent civilians who are simply trying to get on with their lives. In other words, they’re opposed not only to the American occupation but also to the atrocities of the former dictatorship, the violence being perpetrated by the current insurgency, and the broader terrorist acts of Al Qaeda. In other words, they’re pretty much on the bad side of everyone who holds any degree of power in Iraq.

By: Uncle Ben

Uncle Ben — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 02:00:44 +0000

I abhor CPT. If they were merely idealistic I would hold a certain measure of respect for them. They are not. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the leadership is not. CPT seeks to undermine America. It uses pacifists and bleeding hearts to advance a political agenda. That is sickening.

That said, I am still very committed to seeing the hostages released.

By: Bread and Circuses

Bread and Circuses — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:23:57 +0000

My trackback attempt failed, so here you go: manual ping.

By: Night Writer

Night Writer — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:25:29 +0000

Interesting that CPT didn’t go into the Iraq until the U.S. did. Apparently the many Iraqi-based organizations didn’t see a need for outside help to “reduce violence, ensure human rights for all Iraqis, document and report violations of those rights” when Saddam was in charge – or just maybe he wouldn’t let them in. Of course, all these problems presumably will go away following the “end of the occupation of Iraq.”