"My first reaction to the capture of Saddam Hussein was both anger and disgust. Anger with the old dictator who could not even die honourably. He preferred to be captured by his old friends than to go down fighting, the one decent thing he could have done for his country."
"I felt no pity for Saddam. He had killed some dear comrades of mine and imprisoned too many others, but the US had no right to do this. It was the responsibility of the Iraqi people."
"I also felt disgust with the way in which the TV networks were covering this event. CNN and BBC World had become total propaganda networks, to such an extent that it must have made Berlusconi smile. Parading a captured prisoner in this fashion is the new model of imperialism. The latter-day equivalent of how barbarian chieftains were paraded in ancient Rome, prior to their execution."
Let's look at this carefully. Mr. Ali begins by saying that he's disgusted that Saddam couldn't "die honorably," and that this would have been "the one decent thing he could have done for his country." Come on. I'm _glad_ he didn't take that opportunity. It is far _better_ that he be brought to trial, that he stand and be held accountable for his crimes (and maybe implicate those who helped him), and that he _not_ have the chance to make one final escape.
As for "the responsibility of the Iraqi people," we could be really uncharitable to Tariq Ali-- and read this as a _condemnation_ of the Iraqi People. After all, they failed to live up to this "responsibility" for thirty-five years. Mr. Ali seems to forget that a dictatorship _deprives_ its subjects of political responsibilities. In fact, dictators tend to _murder_ those who even _try_ to shoulder it.
And once again, we get the hysterical fretting about the footage of Saddam's capture. Parading a captured prisoner (well, showing tapes of him having his beard combed for lice) is both the "new model of imperialism" as well as the pomp and circumstance of ancient Rome. So, Mr. Ali, how is this then a "new" model of imperialism? Sounds to me as though it's the same story as always-- with the adjustment that Saddam will actually have a _trial_. (It's also important to note that showing Saddam off makes a degree of sense-- to show Iraqis that the man is no longer the arbiter of their fates, the terror of their lives, or the murderer of their families.)
Don't people ever _think_ about these rhetorical phrases before they commit them to publication?