For the second day, The Washington Post rounded up hostile global opinion toward America’s gun culture in a Molly Moore story headlined "Va. Killings Widely Seen as Reflecting a Violent Society: World Reaction Mixes Condolences With Criticism of Policies." But Moore’s article turned unintentionally comic when she quoted an Iraqi praising the gun-control policies of....Saddam Hussein. "But America has terrorism and they are exporting it to us. We did not have this violence in the Saddam era because the law was so tough on guns."
Perhaps it’s not surprising for a liberal newspaper to use a terrible mass shooting as an opportunity for pro-Saddam Iraqis to condemn how the United States has ruined their paradise. But it’s hardly a poster for the Brady Campaign’s gun-control aims – and Saddam’s dictatorship is hardly a model of nonviolence. (It can, however, illustrate the gun-rights crowd’s belief in guns as a bulwark against dictatorship.) Moore’s Iraqi section came about halfway through the article:
Nowhere, perhaps, were foreign reactions to the Virginia shooting more impassioned than in Iraq, where many residents blame the United States for the daily killings in their schools, streets and markets.
"It is a little incident if we compare it with the disasters that have happened in Iraq," said Ranya Riyad, 19, a college student in Baghdad. "We are dying every day."
"They are always saying that the Arabs and Muslims are behind the terrorism and the killing," said Hussein Kadhum, 26, a traffic policeman in the heavily Shiite city of Najaf, south of Baghdad. "But America has terrorism and they are exporting it to us. We did not have this violence in the Saddam era because the law was so tough on guns."
Other than that, the most virulent anti-American opinion forwarded in Moore’s article came from Argentina:
"Massacre in the Paradise of Weapons," declared the headline in the Buenos Aires daily newspaper Pagina/12. In an accompanying article, Dario Kosovsky of the Argentine Network for Disarmament said he believes students who commit mass murder are following the example of the U.S. government, which advocates "the use of violence to achieve liberty."
Moore’s dispatch from Paris began:
Officials, newspaper columnists and citizens around the world Tuesday described the Virginia Tech massacre as the tragic reflection of an America that fosters violence at home and abroad, even as it attempts to dictate behavior to the rest of the world.
From European countries with strict gun-control laws to war-ravaged Iraq, where dozens of people are killed in shootings and bombings each day, foreigners and their news media used the university attack to condemn what they depicted as U.S. policies to arm friends, attack enemies and rely on violence rather than dialogue to settle disputes.
Early on, Moore noted that several Western nations have also been subject to gun violence, but it’s not as controversial, since they all followed up with gun-ownership crackdowns:
Some countries -- Britain, Germany, Canada and Australia among them -- have experienced events of mass gun murder in recent years. The Virginia killings generally seemed not to reignite debate over those killings, which in many instances resulted in tougher gun-control laws, an issue raised by several foreign officials Tuesday.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
What would be shocking is i
April 18, 2007 - 06:52 ET by sarcasmoWhat would be shocking is if these nitwits could find a single dictator who isn't/wasn't in favor of victim disarmament. Some of us drew the obvious conclusion quite a while ago, and have been ignored by papers like the Washington Post ever since.
JMR
Actually I have been more or
April 18, 2007 - 07:10 ET by ltcolusmcretActually I have been more or less ignoring the Washington Post since the 80's. First time I read it was in the mid 70's when I was at OCS and TBS. Wasn't too bad of a paper then. Few years later the entire paper was a liberal diatribe..not just the editorial pages. Worthless piece of wasted tree now.
sarc, I believe your thinkin
April 18, 2007 - 08:45 ET by ForeverOnTheRightsarc, I believe your thinking along the same lines as I am on this subject. What dictator would not have a heavy hand on gun control? Any tyrannical dictator does not want to have an armed citizenry. He’d end up with an armed revolt. The dictator would end up losing the control they obsessively pursue.
Yes, and the proportion of
April 18, 2007 - 08:50 ET by sarcasmoYes, and the proportion of dictators explains the group-opinion of the UN on individual rights to self-defense. The USA's founding fathers were very wise about human nature, and self defense rights -- like private property, honest weights & measures in money, and various other timeless principles in the Constitution -- would work to improve the human condition worldwide IF they were applied. IMO.
JMR
stupidity
April 18, 2007 - 09:00 ET by mtm105OK. The reason Iraq had such excellent gun control was so that Hussein could control everyone.
Hitler did the same thing with the Brownshirts carrying broomsticks. He was able to harrass anyone he wanted.
This Post columnist needs to go back to history class 101.
The reason why America is so great is the fact that we own so many weapons. If a student in the class had a weapon that was getting shot at, there wouldn't have been as much as a travesty...or he wouldn't have even entertained the idea to begin with if he knew someone could have a weapon.
If we stopped making/owning weapons, then the bad guys would still buy them elsewhere and have control. The fact that the US owns guns is the lesser of two evils.
since the washington post is
April 18, 2007 - 07:35 ET by pmohbucksince the washington post is such a delusional state, maybe they could also acknowledge the how effective german gun control was at auschwitz, maidenak, treblinka, dachau and the like
the washington post (as well as the rest of the mainstream media) has really lost a lot of respect in blacksburg and the surrounding new river valley, believe me, i live here and ALL the major players are looking like a bunch of eager opportunists trying to be the first to uncover some award-winning angle ... you should see the outrage pouring into the local radio and TV outlets. insenitivity and ignorance are the main complaints ... we all want them to go away. the local stations, on the other hand, ARE directly affected by the incident and are more interested in helping the community recover. this MSM lustfully relishes horrific incidents like this and it really shows.
liberals
April 18, 2007 - 08:55 ET by iveseenitallThe liberals in the media hate America ---except when they pick up their paychecks.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Well, at least the totalitari
April 18, 2007 - 09:24 ET by Dave RWell, at least the totalitarian-minded liberals are remaining consistent.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.
What would the Washington Pos
April 18, 2007 - 11:08 ET by ratso ferrariWhat would the Washington Post say if Saddam confiscated their printing presses? Would they say it violated the first amendment and was one man overstepping their rights?
He did and they would. For th
April 18, 2007 - 12:53 ET by dahliatraversHe did and they would. For them, it's not the same as confiscating guns. See, the First Amendment is the most important amendment ...
I agree - ban guns, legalize car bombs
April 18, 2007 - 12:11 ET by Gary HallOh, I agree - ban guns; legalize suicide car bombs and suicide belts.
Seriously, I'd question the view that guns were banned in Saddam's Iraq. I suspect they were seriously armed. The fact that Saddam's heavy handed thugs could maintain the sense of obedience in the streets is not difficult to comprehend.
Somewhere, I remembered that Saddam, in fact, armed those loyal to him to defend themselves against invaders; that would generally be the Sunni population. However, I suspect that the Shia and Kurdish populations were armed to the teeth.
"But America has terrori
April 18, 2007 - 15:04 ET by dscott"But America has terrorism and they are exporting it to us. We did not have this violence in the Saddam era because the law was so tough on guns."
Not to mention that guns don't do much good against poison gas, the Kurds found that out the hard way. Better yet, I will take our record of gun violence over Saddam's murdering 300,000 of his countrymen over 30 years any day.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
dscott
April 18, 2007 - 16:47 ET by Gary HallAgreed, and they often forget the one million plus people who died as a result of Iraq's invasion of Iran. Which, by the way, began while Jimmy Carter was president, not Ronald Reagan. Many have suggested that Carter gave his stamp of approval to Saddam at the time, as he was reeling from the ongoing hostage crisis. The media would have little interest in pursuing such a story.