The Progressive Corner

Saddam's Willing Executioners

2006-12-31T20:44:00.000-08:00

I can't believe they beat another dead horse in order to allude some false sense of security or, in Bush's own words, "a milestone for Iraq" (which it isn't). And from the looks of it, Saddam's execution is more or less a ticking time bomb, which, when triggerred, could spark more conflict and chaos in war-torn Iraq. I have no sympathy for the ex-dictator of Iraq who killed at least a hundred thousand Kurdish innocents and tens of thousands of Sunnites and Shiites... Wait. I shouldn't be distinguishing between the Iraqis that he united under his tyrannical rule, as all were in equal danger of being executed by his death squads.

Then again, I'm not happy or jumpy either. It sickened me to many degrees to see people actually celebrate the death of Saddam Hussein. I mean, I can understand that a now defunct dictator is no longer alive, but to celebrate on the death of someone makes those Iraqis and Americans who celebrated over his stinking rotting corpse as bad as those radical "Izlamizts" who allegedly celebrate over the deaths of innocents and soldiers alike. To me, the act of Saddam's execution was more about revenge than justice, for if it was justice, we wouldn't have sectarian attitudes being thrown about all around, and a sectarian government installed by the Coalition that continues to carve up Iraq into more slices than can ever be cut on a family-sized pizza. The execution was not a productive move, especially since it occurred on the first day of Eid Al Adha before sunrise. Perhaps the Iraqi court didn't want Saddam to have a grab at the sweets and candy that people usually pass out to others during this time of love and forgiveness (Eid, that is). This is a day that Muslims worldwide come together and thank God for all His Bounties that He bestowed upon this Earth. It was supposed to be a beautiful day. And they started it out with the hanging of a ruthless dictator.

The fact that it was carried out on Eid Al Adha of all days will make it appear as an insult to Muslims who oppose the Coalition's neo-colonialist occupation of Iraq, as it is just one of many ploys employed by the Coalition to further stamp on the heritage of Iraq, as I explained in an earlier post. However, Saddam was in Iraqi custody, not American custody, so it was the Iraqi government, not the Coalition, that killed him. But let's remind ourselves who really is governing Iraqi politics for the time being, not that the Coalition really does at the moment, but the fact that this is an occupation makes this argument all the more convincing. The trial itself was a farce that signalled nothing but the continuation of the American occupation in Iraq, and the continuing humiliation of Iraqis nationwide, Sunni and Shiite.

Saddam was discredited as a dictator who was the reason behind the sectarian strife that we see today in Iraq. What we see today is an oversimplification of the issue, as Sunnites and Shiites were actually more united under Saddam: in fear, that is. This civil strife was only recently started by the Coalition in as political and militaristic a way as possible, seeking to divide Iraqis starting with the Charter that was drafted out by that neocon who calls himself a "Muslim", Zalmay Khalilzad. According to the late Issam Nashashibi,

Khalilzad's impeccable credentials make him a natural for membership in the neo-conservatives cabal which is the driving force behind Washington's Iraq policy. "He has a narrow of view of the Middle East and South Asia," his former associate stressed. "[Zalmay thinks of] security to the exclusion of everything else. He tends to look at military solutions as the first, not the last policy option."

Of course, that was just a tip of the iceberg: Zalmay wasn't the only person behind the machinations of the Coalition that divided the Iraqis. The point is that Saddam, while a ruthless dictator, did not incite strife at all, but merely killed those who dissented against him, and this is NOT an attempt to justify the monstrous actions of a man like him.

Even more ironic is that people have forgotten the Coalition's active role in the past to install Saddam in power: after all, Saddam was the CIA's man in Baghdad. According to John Collins,

Conveniently carried out just five minutes past the hour when "Anderson Cooper 360" goes on the air, the execution provided an opportunity for viewers to think about the long story of the Iraqi leader's brutal reign. Yet when it came to informing the audience about one key aspect of that history - the role of the United States in helping to create and maintain the "butcher of Baghdad" - CNN offered only amnesia.

It amazes me that Palestinians and other Iraqis and Arabs are actually mourning the death of Saddam Hussein. And then there's Libya's president, Muammar Ghaddhafi (who can't be helped by a mental hospital), offerred several days of mourning for the dictator. That comes months after he said that Britian and America must try Saddam. I can understand why many Palestinians love Saddam, mainly because he was the most vocal Arab leader to talk about unifying the Arabs against Israel and spoke of "freeing Palestine"; any rational person would know that this is nothing but empty rhetoric. Anyways, John Collins further notes that

In the rush to celebrate the death of the "butcher of Baghdad," we are up to our necks in all three types of denial. The failure to provide a full account of this horrifying chapter of Iraqi and American history is, to be sure, an act of literal denial. If two leaders shake hands, but the photo is not shown on CNN, did they really shake hands? One is reminded of the oft-quoted statement by an anonymous New York Times staff member: "If the Times wasn't there, it didn't happen."

Of course, the facts about the U.S. role in Saddam's brutality are not always literally denied, and this is where the second and third types of denial come into play. No doubt in the coming days we will hear numerous commentators attempt to "spin" the facts, as has often happened in discussions of U.S. ambassador April Glaspie's famous "green light" to Saddam just before Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. It wasn't really a green light, we'll be told. Yes, it was a handshake, but that doesn't mean it was an endorsement of Saddam's policies.

The boldest (and, one must add, the most honest) defenders of U.S. policy will employ the language of implicatory denial, insisting, when pressed, that U.S. support for Saddam was justified under the circumstances. We'll be told that the realities of the Cold War, or the struggle against the threat posted by the Iranian revolution, or the need for maintaining U.S. access to cheap fossil fuels, created a context in which the U.S. had no choice but to get its hands dirty.

In this light, it seems that the initial coverage of Saddam's execution has served as a collective ritual hand-washing designed to reassure Americans that they really are the blameless leaders of a cosmic struggle against "evil." And so the answer to the existential question comes into view. Today's mainstream journalism, even "live" TV, is a far cry from the first draft of history. Instead, it functions largely as a transmission of selective history that has been drafted--and airbrushed, and sanitized, and rearranged, and distorted--long before it ever reaches our eyes and ears.

The hypocrisy already stinks like rotten fish.

Another thing: why was Saddam only tried for the Dujail killings? Why didn't they try him for the gassing of the Kurds and the killing of many Sunnite dissidents and clerics who opposed him? Why did they try him only for the killing of Shiites, not that their lives are unimportant?

But let's be honest: Saddam's execution will not heal the already unstable condition that Iraq is in at the moment, and that's not the only thing that grinds my gears. It's just an example of justice gone awry. I'm reminded of the brand of justice that Thrasymachus, a Greek notable, who argued that

Justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger

In this case, the "stronger" is the Coalition that is occupying Iraq. I could think of many figures who should've joined Saddam in the gallows, most notably Bush, Blair and Sharon (along with many Coalition and Israeli military officials who have blood on their hands). I am especially angered at the Coalition's deception of the international public and how they entered Iraq under false pretenses.

Bottom line: Saddam's life is not worth the lives of innocents who might die as a result of sectarian strife that might ensue as a result of this execution. The death of another dictator who was installed by the American government, and who speaks empty promises of restoring pan-Arab nationalism (of which I am an ardent critic of), amounts to the beating of a dead horse. It will most likely add more salt to the wound of Iraq, which will need more than just a united Iraqi effort to restore the nation. I'd like to say that I have hope for this country, but it saddens me to say that I've lost most of that hope when I see the Iraqi public opinion divided over many matters, of which Saddam was an unexpected determinant of shaping this public opinion. I think, however, that if Iraqis wake up and realize that they're being disunited in a mess, thanks in part to the sectarian government and the Coalition, they would rise up and deport the Coalition, and overthrow the government in order to establish a government for a united Iraq. Saddam's execution was just an assertation of the fact that the Iraqis will suffer from imperialist occupation and neocon chickenhawk stupidity for who knows how long.

This is hard coming from someone who has lost almost all hope for this Cradle of Civilization, but I'd like to take a moment of silence... not for the petty dictator called Saddam, but for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who sufferred as a result of this farcical war, and I pray, with you, in these sacred days of Eid Al Adha, a time of forgiveness, love and compassion, for the safety of the people of Iraq, the hopefully eventual unification of the people of Iraq, and justice for the people of Iraq... especially against those who seek to sow discord and increase bloodshed amongst Iraqis and humanity in general.

Saracen

Yawwwn... The Arab World Hates the U.S. Government More than Ever

2006-12-17T09:44:00.000-08:00

Great... Now, tell me something I don't know for a change. I mean, who would expect this coming? Ever since the beginning of the war on Iraq, we thought that the Iraqi people would greet the Coalition troops with flowers and candy, though I hate to say that the Iraqis saved those flowers for other purposes. This is due to the worsening conditions in the nation, with increasing violence and a deployment of "divide and conquer" tactics on part of the Coalition. Then, of course, the elections came around, but those didn't curb the increasing violence that ensued afterwards. One could only hope that this civil strife doesn't conflagrate to nearby MidEastern nations... God, I hope not.

Anyways, two organizations, Zogby International (owned by Arab-American James Zogby) and United Press International (owned by some other guy I don't know), published two separate polls which show that Arab distrust of the U.S. government has increased. This is nothing new, really: Al Jazeera published many polls like this before... not that this is anything new. But with the recent war on Lebanon and the increasing raids in Gaza that go unabashed, the American government remains blind to the Arab public that it supposedly wants to help. For this alone, we can see why Arabs would hate the U.S. government even more than they did before. Zogby's poll is quite revealing itself: if anything, negative attitudes were on the rise, especially towards American "freedom/democracy" and whatever else is American in general (of which the latter I tend to have a neutral opinion on).

In interpreting it further, we have Tom Regan of the Christian Science Monitor, who published these findings online. Before we continue, I'd like to highlight the skeptical accuracy of polls, as mentioned by Regan here:

The surveys, conducted in November, surveyed 3,500 Arab adults in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan.

Well, 3,500 adults in each nation might make sense, but each nation mentioned has a population that is a thousand-fold bigger than the sample size taken in the poll. However, Regan would have known this and taken that earlier polls had either the same sample size or even a smaller sample size. He cites the Washington Times, which reported that in the past,

Mr. Zogby said he first noticed a distinct shift in 2004. In the 2006 survey, only a plurality of Lebanese polled expressed a favorable view of the American people, with 44 percent approving and 18 percent expressing unfavorable views.

The American people are viewed least favorably in Saudi Arabia, where 18 percent said they had a favorable opinion and 34 percent expressed an unfavorable opinion. At the same time, 50 percent of Saudis say they like American products, compared with 24 percent who do not ...

Middle Eastern poll respondents cited the Iraq war and perceived US support for Israel over the Palestinians as their biggest concerns.

Of course, nothing surprising there. I tend to take polls with a grain of salt, as many have been shown to be faulty (such as the famous bollocks of a Daily Telegraph poll which showed that 53% of Britons feel that Islam is a threat to the West).

James Zogby himself commented on the results, saying,

"If America wants to salvage itself and improve its standing and get the credibility and legitimacy it needs to lead in Iraq, it needs to do something to earn the trust of allies in the broader region."

Well, of course the American government needs to earn that trust, but from what I see, it's not going to be an easy path, considering that the American government has an impressive track record of 50+ years in accumulating and earning distrust of the Arab people towards the American government. Such a long time eventually lead to a substantial portion of the Arab population hating not just the American government, but also anything that hinted at being commercially American.

But it's not going to be easy for the American government to salvage this trust from the bloodied corpses of dead Iraqis, Lebanese and Palestinians, the heap of rubble of destroyed homes and buildings, and the despair in the souls of those who were rendered destitute as a result of American interventionism, in whatever form it came over these Goddamned 50+ years of aggression and support of aggression against Arabs.

Saracen

Has Ahmadinejad Lost his Mind?!

2006-12-13T16:30:00.000-08:00

He's not "possessed" like many people make him out to be, but he is as obsessed with the Holocaust issue and other whacko conspiracy theories. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad went too far this time: he hosted a "Holocaust conference" that was most likely a mock conference used to insult Jewish history and the Holocaust itself, which is an event that has roots in human history as Jews, Poles, and all other "opponents" to the Nazi regime were executed (quoted "opponents" because many of them were innocent of any opposition or support for that matter). Ahmadinejad is shatterring his own image with the very thing that people are accusing him of being: denying the Holocaust's existence.

To do that, he invited several historians from around the world to attend this conference... historians who have been painted as Holocaust deniers. Granted, these people have the right to believe what they believe in, but as long as they do, there will be people elsewhere who will criticize them for it. I myself do not deny the Holocaust: I know people whose parents and grandparents survived the Holocaust. The invitee list is caustic. Among the attendees are former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke and French professor Robert Faurisson, both of them well-known anti-Semites. If Iran's leader was honest about this Holocaust conference, he would have invited an equal number of reputable historians on the Holocaust who affirm its occurrence, not just Khaled Mahameed, who is one of these historians.

Not surprisingly, the conference received widespread condemnation, mainly from the Western world. Of course, we get the same old, lame old rhetoric from Ehud Olmert, probably the most incompetent Israeli Prime Minister to date. The conference was immediately labelled as anti-Semitic (which I believe it is to some extent) because it speaks of continuing a debate which ended years and years ago, ever since the criminals responsible for the Holocaust were tried and executed.

But Ahmadinejad received even more noteworthy criticism from an unexpected source: a Palestinian prisoner. While I'm sure that most if not all Palestinians believe that the Holocaust really occurred, this one made note because it was actually made much more public. Angus McDowall of The Independent writes,

However, Mr Ahmadinejad has been condemned on the eve of the conference by Mahmoud al-Safadi, who was sentenced to 27 years by Israel for throwing Molotov cocktails during the 1988 intifada. In an open letter to the Iranian president, he says that Mr Ahmadinejad's stance is a "great disservice to popular struggles the world over".

"Perhaps you see Holocaust denial as an expression of support for the Palestinians," he writes. "Here, too, you are wrong. We struggle for our existence and our rights, and against the historic injustice that was dealt us in 1948.

"Our success and our independence will not be gained by denying the genocide perpetrated against the Jewish people, even if parts of this people are the very forces that occupy and dispossess us to this day." Mr Safadi says that reading the works of Arab intellectuals helped convince him that the Holocaust was a historical fact.

Golden words, in my opinion. I find it hypocritical that Ahmadinejad stands against the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people and at the same time deny that genocide occurred against the Jews, even though a part of the Jewish people (i.e. Zionists in the Israeli regime) are committing atrocities against the Palestinians. It is often taken in the Arab world, sadly, that Israel represents the world Jewry, and Judaism as a whole, and that support for the Palestinians means that we should oppose Israel, the "representative" of the world Jewry. This is the reason why many Zionists equate anti-Zionism (over Palestine) with anti-Semitism, and sadly, some pro-Palestinian supporters, Palestinian or not, "justify" their anti-Semitism because the "other side" is anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian or anti-Muslim racist.

This, of course, isn't true. There are many Zionists out there who support a Jewish state, but do not support genocide, nor are they anti-Arab/anti-Muslim bigots, and I know this because I've debated with such people. Ahmadinejad seeks to polarize the sides, and turn it into some apocalyptic conflict. His support for Palestine does not come at denying the Holocaust. If he hosted a conference against Zionist motivations in Palestine (i.e. the Catastrophe of 1948), I'd have no problem as it is purely historical, though politics is rapidly losing its flavor with me because of how much it divides people. If he is supporting an oppressed people, he shouldn't denigrate the oppressor's background, that's what I'd say. I hope this Holocaust conference becomes nothing more than a sham and a reassurance to Ahmadinejad that it did happen.

Ahmadinejad's views on Israel have been very ambivalent. On one note, he acknowledges the existence of the Holocaust but undermines the legitimacy of the Israeli regime. On the other, he is willing to say that the Holocaust is a myth. Even returning to the related stories in the first article I presented (the one with Olmert and Merkel) do you see this ambivalence in his opinion. Clearly, Ahmadinejad is stammerring on this issue.

On that note, I am equivocal in condemning all genocides in the history of man, from the earliest days to the present, wherever such killings of innocents occurs. Whether it be the Holocaust, Stalin's Purges, the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem, etc., there is no justification for such actions. Ahmadinejad is now trying to push some of that under the dirt, and that is certainly not going to help the Palestinian cause for self-determination. But Ahmadinejad remains a non-threat, though his provocative remarks and assertation of independence are quite surprising for a politician these days. Whatever it is, with or without this petty Holocaust conference, the Holocaust happened, and so has every other genocide that has been recorded in human history. And those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it. We should remember all incidents of sufferring in the past and present, so we could work together to build a safer and more prosperous future for our children.

Saracen

Rumsfled's "Memo of Options": Just Another Corruption Manual

2006-12-08T20:21:00.000-08:00

Anyone been following up on this old coot? Yeah, I'm talking about U.S. Secretary of "Defense", Donald "Rummy" Rumsfeld, accomplished neocon and one man who has plenty of blood on his hands. I must admit that he has done quite a lot for the detriment of Iraq, sadly, considering the fallacious investigations into genocidal incidents on part of Coalition troops stationed there. Rumsfeld is famous for being cute in front of the mic, and in mulling over most issues that neocons try to run away from, whenever it comes to being questioned by the press (yes, God damn them for trying to get the truth out, eh, Rummy?). But they're authority figures, so we can't question them, even when they screw up a beautiful nation like Iraq 100,000 times over.

The ever so snoopy (and yet also biased) New York Times published a formerly classified Novermber 6 memorandum that Donald Rumsfeld himself issued regarding the Iraq war. The big hype of it all is that it was supposed to issue a "major" change. Well, let's just see how "major" it really is. Let's start by analyzing the intro of the memo:

"The situation in Iraq has been evolving, and U.S. forces have adjusted, over time, from major combat operations to counterterrorism, to counterinsurgency, to dealing with death squads and sectarian violence. In my view it is time for a major adjustment. Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough."

Remind me again... who was it who incited this "sectarian violence" and encouraged the formation of the "death squads" in the first place? The Iraqis themselves? Doubt they would commit suicide, especially when an invader such as the Coalition is involved.

What I find common amongst neocon politicians and other incompetents is that they usually have no friggin' clue on what they're talking about, and what they speak is usually empty Orwellian gibberish that is most dismissed by the biggest threat to such politicians: the intellectual mind. Let's just start by looking at his first "point":

"Publicly announce a set of benchmarks agreed to by the Iraqi Government and the U.S. — political, economic and security goals — to chart a path ahead for the Iraqi government and Iraqi people (to get them moving) and for the U.S. public (to reassure them that progress can and is being made)."

If anything, the U.S. public has not been assured of any such progress for the most part in Iraq. So, how are the Iraqi people themselves, who for the most part want the Coalition out of Iraq, going to respond to this? Obviously, not so well. Note also that Rumsfeld made it clear that this non-representative government of Iraq is the only body that the Coalition is dealing with, not the people of Iraq, and this of course underlies any sort of democratic reform because it fails to address the demands of the people.

Then, there's the question of a pull-out, or even adding more U.S. troops to the mess in Iraq. Honestly, Rumsfeld has no care whatsoever about human life: those of the Iraqi troops and those of his own nation's troops.

"Significantly increase U.S. trainers and embeds, and transfer more U.S. equipment to Iraqi Security forces (ISF), to further accelerate their capabilities by refocusing the assignment of some significant portion of the U.S. troops currently in Iraq."

Not that I tend to be biased, but carrying out joint military exercises, as Russia and China have done in the past, have been viewed at negatively because in this case, the developing Iraqi army is in cahoots with the developed Coalition (U.S./U.K.) army. This is pretty much starting to sound like the forging of the Egypt-U.S. alliance ever since that petty scumbag of a dictator, Husni Mubarak, took the presidential throne for himself.

Skipping over a few subtle empty points, we find something not so subtle:

"Initiate an approach where U.S. forces provide security only for those provinces or cities that openly request U.S. help and that actively cooperate, with the stipulation being that unless they cooperate fully, U.S. forces would leave their province."

So, let me get this straight. Provine A wants the help of the U.S., but the people of province A will only get that help if they allow themselves to be subjugated to Coalition "security measures". That is, the people of province A get their freedoms sacrificed for the sake of their "security", which could eventually result in the destabilization of the province. But seeing how that works, we turn to another point in this damning memo:

"Stop rewarding bad behavior, as was done in Fallujah when they pushed in reconstruction funds, and start rewarding good behavior. Put our reconstruction efforts in those parts of Iraq that are behaving, and invest and create havens of opportunity to reward them for their good behavior. As the old saying goes, “If you want more of something, reward it; if you want less of something, penalize it.” No more reconstruction assistance in areas where there is violence."

"Good" behavior means compliance with Coalition demands, not Iraqi demands. The Coalition has absolutely no moral right whatsoever to do such a thing. Of course, this is by definition cronyism, because it just leads to further distrust and may also give the Coalition the pretext to incite more civil tensions in Iraq, and I mean all over it.

This one made me laugh:

"Position substantial U.S. forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and, importantly, reduce Iranian influence on the Iraqi Government."

He doesn't have to worry about it as there already is a strong Coalition influence on the government, which has proved more negative than positive.

The last point is just a pure re-iteration and confirmation of the goals of the Coalition in Iraq:

"Provide money to key political and religious leaders (as Saddam Hussein did), to get them to help us get through this difficult period."

That couldn't have been more clearer, Rummy. The memo of options has proved itself to be just another sleazy political move on part of the U.S. government in the case of Iraq. All they have to do is favoritize certain political figures over others so they could do whatever the Coalition tells them to do, and yet the Coalition absolves itself from any and all responsibility.

Whatever it is, I'm glad that Rummy Rumsfeld's words, like those of any politician, are not going to be implemented into U.S. foreign policy in the future. He has finally stepped down, only to be replaced by former CIA Director Robert Gates (Associated Press, Forbes). Also commenting on this event is Counterpuncher Mike Whitney. Rumsfeld, according to Whitney, can't be trusted, because Rumsfled

spies on Americans' phone calls, computers, medical records, bank records and groups. He has been a stanch supporter of planting propaganda in newspapers and TV. He introduced a program that created a "rapid response" team to rebut information that is critical of US foreign policy appearing on blogs, web-sites and letters to the editor. He controlled the flow of information coming out of Iraq and managed to silence many of the war's critics. He developed a plan for "Total Information Awareness" that is designed to control everything that the public sees and hears from cradle to grave.

Now he is trying to write his own legacy. It is just another in a long list of deceptions; a smokescreen created to conceal his responsibility in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

The memo states that Rumsfeld was planning to make major adjustments and that "Clearly, what US forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough". But "what US forces were doing" was exactly what Rumsfeld told them to do; nothing more, nothing less.

When he told them to bomb Falluja to the ground, they followed his orders; and when they tortured and stacked naked prisoners on top of each other, they followed his orders. And, when they trained the Shiite death squads to kill and maim Sunni suspects, they followed his orders.

Every major decision in 4 years of conflict bears Rumsfeld's imprimatur. It's his policy; it's his war. If Rumsfeld continued as Secretary of Defense, then nothing would change, because he has absolute confidence in violence and deception as the two main instruments for political transformation.

Rumsfeld's memo is great reading for fiction-lovers. It provides a revealing snapshot of a leader who carefully considered every alternative before making a decision. It's a stark contrast to the intractable narcissist who ignored his advisors and bullied his generals. But, like I said, it's great fiction.

Excerpt: "Announce that no matter whatever new approach the US decides on, the US is doing on a trial basis'. This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, and therefore not lose'".

In other words, keep moving the goalposts while people die and the public will never catch on.

That's a whole new take on cynicism.

Rumsfeld has enjoyed his 6-year tenure as Sec-Def. He probably thought it would never end. Now what he needs is a good biographer, like Bob Woodward, who can invent a story about his exploits fighting "radical Islam's" attack on the "land of the free and the home of the brave". No doubt, there'll be a photo of the square-jawed Rummy plastered atop the muscled torso of Favio staving off the swarthy Middle Eastern males' with his trusty DOD-issue scimitar.

Enough said.

The memo is just more gibberish; the empty dissembling of a con-man trying to hoodwink the public before scuttling off into political oblivion.

I know that this might seem irrelevant - that he drafted up this plan - but think of the irony here: in his last move as the Secretary of "Defense", he clearly defined for us the imperialistic "divide and conquer" motives behind U.S. foreign policy. And yet, here we see another war criminal, in the same row as people like Henry Kissinger, Ariel Sharon, George W. Bush Jr., Tony Blair, Slobodan Milosevic, and others, scuffle away from justice.

So, yes, as Whitney pointed out, I've got the same advice for you, Rummy: Don't let the door hit you on the way out... Don.

Saracen

Pitiful Politics of the Levant

2006-12-07T19:01:00.000-08:00

I thought the situation in Lebanon would simmer down a bit after the Israeli invasion of the once upright Mediterranean nation during the hot summer that was hot for many reasons. Instead, I wake up to see, right on the morning news, turmoil. The (assassination of the Maronite cabinet minister Pierre Gemayel could not have come at a worse time. And now, instead of Lebanon uniting, we get fingers all over the place, pointing in all sorts of directions... with your friendly neighborhood Sa'ad Al-Hariri - who wouldn't amount even to my younger brother in his "maturity" - prattling on the same Bush-style B.S. about a lover of freedom who was killed in Beirut. Granted, I deplore the death of Gemayyel, but exploiting the death of one politician for the gains of another is just... typically political.

Well, you get the idea, not that I'd like to see Sa'ad Al-Hariri fall off from a two-meter stage and break his leg. But the thing is, why the heck do we have someone like Nasrallah now inciting protests against the government? I had a feeling that something like this was going to happen, especially since sectarian tensions flared during AND after Pierre Gemayyel's funeral. As two of my dear Lebanese friends put it, this is simply a case of "democracy gone wrong". According to Al Jazeera,

Christian leader Michel Aoun said that the Lebanese opposition would escalate its protests if the government failed to accept demands for a national unity cabinet. "If the prime minister and his camp continue to monopolise power, there will be an escalation of popular pressure," Aoun told Associated French Press. "We will paralyse the government ... we will force it to go into a deep coma."

I hate to break it to Aoun and other Lebanese officials, but I personally think that they are all sufferring from a coma at the moment: they are obviously not aware of the almost extremely disunited state that their nation is in. Unless they wake up, Lebanon will remain a divided nation. Also,

The Organisation of the Islamic Conference urged Lebanese leaders to act with "the highest degree of self-restraint, wisdom and responsibility in order to save the country from slipping on the inevitable slope of confrontation". Lebanon's Maronite church also weighed in, urging an early presidential election, an tribunal into the killing of Rafiq al-Hariri, and the formation of a new "government of accord" to end the political deadlock. The opposition, made up of Shia and Christian factions, has held demonstrations since Friday outside the offices of Fouad Siniora, the Lebanese prime minister,in central Beirut where he and several ministers have been holed up.

Poor Siniora... I wonder how it's like to be holed up inside a parliament building for days on end. My rather sarcastic sympathies aside, I have to outline something: Siniora isn't the sharpest bullet around. He's the former finance minister and held this position for a short while. Before that, he was a businessman. And what better businessmen to be politicians, especially in the Arab world? Ok, now seriously, let's reflect on the Maronite Church's position. The "government of accord" clearly caught my eye: it's seemingly the same demand being echoed by the opposition protestors who are camped outside the Lebanese parliament building.

But then again, something else caught my eye. Returning to the story regarding sectarian tensions making sparks especially after Gemayyel's funeral, one mourner, who goes by the name of Fadi Jalakh, said something that I am most definitely in cahoots with:

"Those who killed him don't want the Lebanese to unite. Anything after this is going to make things worse."

This is not to necessarily say that he's right: what is it was a personal vendetta? What if the murderer did want the Lebanese to unite, but in his/her own sick, perverted way? Many a man has been murdered since Hariri, among them politician Gibran Tueni, his colleague and a prominent journalist Samir Kassir (whose book, Being Arab, I will be talking about later), former Lebanese Communist party leader George Hawi, and now Industry Minister Pierre Gemayyel. It's relatively easy to see why all fingers have been pointed at Syria: all names mentioned have been vocal critics of the Syrian political intervention in Lebanon (and rightly so). One might speculate that because they opposed Syrian presense in Lebanon, they were killed. Another might say that others are seeking to sow discord between Arabs, and frame Syria in the process. Or it might have just been some strange political bickering... but whatever it was, Lebanese politicians all over were exploiting the deaths of these men.

To be honest with you, reader, I don't know what to make of this mess. On one hand, the protests have so far been "peaceful and civilized". On the other hand, they're still going on, and who knows when they'll end. I honestly don't know who to trust: Nasrallah and Aoun, or Siniora and his government. It's quite obvious, however, that they're still being political: Nasrallah, in a televised address, claimed that he and his supporters would lead a non-violent resistance and not encourage any sort of tension. Siniora, however, remains holed up, and he and his colleagues, including Jumblatt, whose demeanor speaks truly of his lacking intelligence, keep parrotting demands for dialogue with concessions and formation of a government "with accords". Of course, Nasrallah tries to lend credibility to his argument by stating, on Al Manar,

"We insist on our demands, for the formation of a real government of national unity... because it is the only means to prevent any foreign tutelage on Lebanon, so that we have Lebanese decision-making."

I'm not sure if I am to take his word on this one. I mean, clearly, politicians these days tend to be less concerned about the gains of nations and more concerned about their own selfish gains and influence in the region. This, of course, has to do with power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Bush definitely lead this adage by example; look what he did to Iraq. I wonder if the other politicians are smart enough not to fall into the same manhole.

I think it's best that these politicians follow my plan for political reform in the Arab world, because if they don't, they'll find themselves ripping each other apart. Nasrallah's Hizbullah faction clearly shows, for example, favoritism for the Shi'ite south. The same goes for Nabih Berri's Amal faction. The Lebanese Forces of Samir Geagea, yet another politician I have absolutely no respect nor love for, are almost purely Maronite-leaning, as are the Phalange/Kataeb of Amine Gemayyel, the father of the slain Pierre Gemayyel. What the Lebanese need is a party that favors Lebanese, and addresses the rights of other minorites in Lebanon who are not Lebanese in origin, just like any just nation would do.

Identifying the problem is the first step to the solution. And as long as the leaders themselves have personal vendettas that they just can't seem to shove aside, then I propose that these leaders be deposed in favor of a generation of new statesmen (NOT politicians) that has no (familial) association whatsoever with any of the sectarian/feudalist politicians in the Lebanese parliament. Either that, or all parties should drop their personal grudges and work towards rebuilding the nation that was once known as the "Paris of the Middle East"...

But who am I kidding? I have no hope for politicians who waste parliamentary sessions fighting over the most trivial of issues.

Saracen

Invading Iran?

2006-11-25T05:57:00.000-08:00

Military analysts in Washington say that Bush may soon decide to bomb Iran. Apparently though, they think it would only be a "limited military action to destroy their WMD capabilities," not a full-scale invasion. The idea of a clean, in-and-out operation that ends quickly reminds me of the "Mission Accomplished" banner from May of 2003, which has been followed by three and a half years of continued military occupation with no end in sight.

No one knows how many have been killed in Iraq, and no one can know how many would be killed in Iran. One might draw hope from the idea that the Bush administration would learn from its mistakes in Iraq, and not invade Iran. Of course, one might have hoped that they would have learned from Afghanistan and not have invaded Iraq. One might have hoped that the American government would learn from Vietnam or Korea, and hesitate to invade countries in the guise of bringing democracy, but one hoping that would be disappointed.

Whether the motive is bringing democracy to the Middle East, bringing oil from the Middle East, or something else, the past has shown that it brings death to many. Estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq range from Iraq Body Count's minimum estimate of about 47,500 to The Lancet's (PDF) estimate of over 600,000. There have been no widely reported estimates of civilian deaths in Afghanistan, all that is really known is that it is many, in my opinion too many.

The past has also shown that "the mission", whatever it is exactly, cannot be done simply and easily. The "mission" in Iraq was declared "accomplished" in two months; nevertheless, is now well into its third year. The Independent once called the conflict in Afghanistan the "War With No End," as it, like Iraq, seems to have no end in sight. A "limited military operation" in Iran might be no different.

Fortunately, Bush will soon be subject to a Democratic congress. Unfortunately, many Democrats voted with Republicans to support the invasion of Iraq, and there is no guarantee that they will not do the same if it comes to Iran. Some say that Bush doesn't have the trust of the public which is necessary to invade another country, and, though this trust is of course not technically necessary to launch military operations, it is necessary for the Republican Party to win elections. It is my hope, though not necessarily my belief, that party politics will do some good for once and prevent an invasion.

If Bush does decide to invade Iran though, for whatever reasons, it will not be simple, it will not be short, and it will certainly not be bloodless.

"Leftist Wave" in Latin America

2006-11-24T21:11:00.000-08:00

First, it was Evo Morales of Bolivia. Afterwards, it was Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. And now,it's Daniel Ortega and his Sandinista movement, out of all parties, of Nicaragua. The wave of electoral victories by leftist parties in the Western hemisphere has come to show that the rightwing certainly is wrong on most parts, and is losing support fast. Then again, "anti-Americanism" is rife in this part of the world. Of course, when it comes to bigger nations intervening in the affairs of "the little guys", you can expect a warm response to such meddling... right?

But that aside, Latin America was a major Cold War front back in the 50's onwards. From it arose famous figures, such as Che Guevara (who, while glorified and immortalized on t-shirts, baseball caps, and posters, was a murderer at best), Fidel Castro, Augusto Pinochet, and - who would've guessed it? - Daniel Ortega. During the era of the Cold War, many democratically-elected leftist leaders of Latin American nations were deposed in U.S.-government-sanctioned coups; thousands of innocents paid dearly with their lives as a result of this intervention and its consequences. As a result, many people suffered under rightwing oppressive dictatorships, or were decimated by rightwing militant factions. Whatever the case, Latin America has proven to be an interesting case of interventionism, moreso because of the icons, the events, the atrocities, the leaders, and the desperation that was a trademark of this era of post-WW2 interventionism and imperialism.

But what will become of this situation? Will the American government actually set its sights on these nations and turn each one of them into more Iraqs and Afghanistans, just to install leaders who would abide by the whims of the American government? Who knows, really? I am not a fan of leftism or rightism, but I'd take a lefty over a rightwinger any day since leftwingers tend to stand up more for social justice issues. Anyways, we'll see how this plays out...

Saracen

P.S. For those interested in interventionist policies running rampant in the Americas, I recommend Empire's Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of Imperialism by Greg Gandin. While I managed to read only a couple of excerpts from this book, I have to say that it's quite comprehensive and well-cited from what I have seen. But of course, Gandin is a staunch Chomskyite, so he might be anti-American for the sake of being anti-American, but anti-American might mean anti-American-government at all times.

North Korea goes Nuclear... now what?

2006-11-19T17:31:00.000-08:00

With the Palestinian Unity Government gearing almost into full-swing, and Iraq clambering on the top of the bottomless abyss of destruction that it seems to be falling down upon, we turn our shift to another country that has been making news. North Korea. You know, the little nation with a capital city that almost rhymes with ping pong and borders its southern neighbor: (you guessed it) South Korea. It made recent headlines because it apparently did something that displeased the neoconservative American government (now almost defunct because of the recent Democratic electoral victory): its leader, Kim Jong Il, ordered a nuclear test as his nation finally achieved, after years of oppressive rule under his tyranny, capabilities of building nuclear weapons (oh, joy), and, in a show of "defiance", test-fired the nuke.

So, in effect, we're witnessing another "Iran" as a "thorn" to Bush's side. In case you missed it, North Korea is also part of Bush's "Axis of Evil"... and I thought Iran's "Izlamofashist" dictator was enough. But all the while, Iran is still the victim here: the victim of an unjust propaganda campaign bent at snatching away its right to peaceful nuclear technology.

Just to give you an idea of the hypocrisy here. The Iranian government is being scrutinized particularly because it seeks to enrich its own uranium ores so that it may use them for nuclear power. The neocon administration is asserting that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and is thus launching an international offensive to press Iran into not doing anything. But the entire process itself requires enrichment to begin with, or else Iran will be left without any purpose to seek nuclear power. North Korea already bypassed that, and went as far as to producing nuclear weapons. To deny the Iranians the same right is too hypocritical to say the least. Sure, North Korea may not necessarily be a signatory of the NPT (FAS.org), but to seriously impose restrictions on Iran is seriously hypocritical: if anything, Iran is no threat, never has been.

And then there's Kim Jong Il, whose government can never be more anti-American in nature. Just take a look at this Google search I just conducted, or, better yet, take a look at this:

This is pretty much the same communist hogwash propaganda that one can expect from a country governed by a leader who, like George Dubya Bush, has not left the Cold War era and entered into the sphere of realpolitik. Regarding the issue, I have nothing against their anti-American stance, and while I'm not anti-American, I'm most certainly not pro-American either, or pro-(anyone in particular). Someone might argue on the same basis that the Sudanese government is anti-Darfurian, and the Israeli government is anti-Palestinian, and on and on.

Regarding this issue, Kim Jong Il is entering murky waters. I see no reason for nukes unless they're deterrents, but then again, I believe that nukes should be abolished completely. Also, North Korea sparks special concern because, like its southern neighbor, it is inherently culturally Korean. South Korea's "sunshine policy" seems to be indicative of an effort to reunify North Korea and South Korea into Korea. I have a special connection with Korea particularly because I'm a student of Tae Kwon Do, and have yet to fully master this beautiful martial art. Anyways, getting back to the topic, I believe that North Korea's government should dismantle itself, for the good of its people and for the good of its neighbors, as well as approach the table and hear out the South Korean government on this one. Perhaps one Korea is better than two Koreas, especially when North Korea's people are being underrepresented.

Oh, well, we'll see how this one plays out.

PNA Unity... in this Desperation?

2006-11-07T18:41:00.000-08:00

Palestine... Palestine... Palestine... Sometimes, I hold little regard to my national identity that I technically view it as simply my cultural identity and a place that I can trace my origins to. I'm just iffed at politics to an extent that nationalism and national identity mean almost nothing to me, because all that nationalism and national identity have done is divide people by identifying them as different. My views towards the political parties of my people has become all too cynical for me to comment it. If you don't believe me, just take a look at my previous rant regarding the "unity" issue.

Speaking of the "unity" between Fatah and Hamas, I always viewed it as unlikely, especially considering the already increasing violence against Palestinians in the occupied territories (42 dead, including two paramedics!). But this is just to point out the recent developments surrounding this issue. One of the papers that covered this issue was Israel's Jerusalem Post, a clearly right-wing publication; nevertheless, the news is always something one can benefit from. It's obvious that Abbas, as usual, refuses to resign for the sake of unity, while Haniyeh actually yielded to stepping down as the unity PM (Al Jazeera). But there already is skepticism over this unity: obviously, both parties are oblivious to the deteriorating political and economic situation. According to the JPost,

a poll published on Tuesday by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion reported that pessimism was rising among Palestinians about the chances of an improvement in their economic and political situation. According to the survey, which covered some 1,000 people, 62.3 percent said they were now pessimistic, while 80.9% were worried about the very survival of their families. T. Nabil Kukali, director of the Bet Sahur-based center, said the proportion of pessimists in the Palestinian territories had increased by 33.2% from a year ago.

Kukali said two-thirds of the respondents evaluated their financial condition as "bad," an increase of 24.8 percentage points compared to last year's poll. He said more than 60% of Palestinians hold the Israel, the US and other donor countries responsible for the deterioration in the economic situation in the Palestinian territories. The results of the latest survey "should be taken very seriously because they show in abundance the dreadful extent of the recession that economic and living conditions have undergone."

The findings from Near East Consulting not only support the findings of the poll, but also allude to a horrible future for quite a lot of Palestinians if this situation deteriorates. It's no surprise why many Palestinians are distrustful of their government, especially as far as Israel is concerned in this issue. But returning to the situation of the Palestinians, one could see that these results slightly correlate with the amount of support each faction receives: it's obvious that most Palestinians, according to these findings, who are below the poverty line are pessimistic and skeptical regarding the issue of factional trust from the beginning.

Ok, now seriously, the PNA had better get its act together, because there are a lot of Palestinians living in a bad situation, and if their lives are to improve, there should be an effective economic and political reform, because years of corruption and occupation have eroded Palestinian society for far too long. The Palestinians can't afford to lose over petty political bickering.

Saracen

Neoconservative Justice: Non-Threat Former Dictator Saddam gets Death Penalty

2006-11-06T18:31:00.000-08:00

Funny... the last time I tuned into Iraq, it was in a state of chaos and anarchy, with the Iraqi capital of Baghdad divided into many mini-states, with the bubble world known as the "Green Zone" fortified from the rest of the death and destruction. A month ago or so, the death toll was found to be shockingly higher than it was estimated to be. But looking at the present, something happened that wasn't too surprising for the common viewer: Saddam Hussein, former President of Iraq...was sentenced to death.

I honestly don't know what to make of it. On one side, he is finally getting punished for the crimes he committed against innocent Iraqis. On the other hand, there shouldn't have been such a big contemplation over this issue. What's worse was that the verdict was just another factor that could prove to be divisive, so says Al Jazeera.net. It should be noted that Saddam still had many (pro-Baath) supporters amongst the Iraqi populace, not that it's a good thing; I despise the Ba'ath party like no tomorrow, simply because they were the biggest factors in tainting the international Arab image. Regarding this issue, it is sad to see that Iraqis are divided over this issue.

However, this trial is the latest demonstration of the neoconservative brand of justice: only those who oppose your foreign policy aims are terrorists and dictators. Granted, Saddam was a despot and a murderer, but there are a lot of leaders who were deposed in interventionist operations during the Cold-War era; none of the leaders who were deposed were of any national threat to the United States of America, let alone an international threat to the neighboring nations. Pakistani General Pervez Musharraf, while a maintainer of order, is also a secular despot who falls under the same category as does Abu Uday (Saddam), yet he is not a dictator by American foreign policy standards. The same can be said for the Uzbek president, and other historically notorious names such as Augusto Pinochet (Chile), the Contra rebels (Nicaragua), Shah Reza Pahlevi (Iran), et al.

I can't tell you how pissed I am when I see that many war criminals are living atop the thrones of nations that could have otherwise been free nations. Then again, there are many war criminals who still walk this earth, unpunished for the crimes that they have committed. Not surprisingly, many bloggers have found the same issue that I have faced, including one J.S. Guntzel of Electronic-Iraq.net. He introduces to us a man by the name of Abu Deraa, citing a Newsweek article. This man and his death squads have

been waging a campaign of terror across the city. He is suspected of torturing and killing scores of Sunnis in a bloody wave of ethnic cleansing in neighborhoods across Baghdad. U.S. officials believe Abu Deraa is responsible for the capture of a U.S. Army translator who disappeared two weeks ago while leaving the fortified Green Zone and remains missing.

He and Zarqawi are definitely cut from the same thread: both have been leading attacks against the other sect, and neither have any moral high ground. But, as usual, the biggest crooks lie within the government. Why is that? Well, with the government, there is authority and power, and a bigger chance that you can commit a heinous crime and get away with it. Guntzel tells us to look no further than this Human Rights Watch report, which urges the Iraqi government to

move quickly to prosecute all Ministry of Interior personnel responsible for "death squad" killings in Baghdad and elsewhere, Human Rights Watch said today.

"Evidence suggests that Iraqi security forces are involved in these horrific crimes, and thus far the government has not held them accountable," said Sarah Leah Whitson, director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East division. "The Iraqi government must stop giving protection to security forces responsible for abduction, torture and murder."

Every month, hundreds of people are abducted, tortured and killed by what many believe are death squads that include security forces. To terrorize the population, the killers often dump the mutilated corpses in public areas.

Human Rights Watch welcomed the recent suspension from duties of the 8th Iraqi Police Unit pending an investigation into their complicity in abductions and killings. The US military has claimed that the unit was responsible for the October 1 kidnapping of 26 Sunni food factory workers in southwest Baghdad, 10 of whom were later found dead. The news agency Inter Press Service reported that the unit used Ministry of Interior vehicles and, according to witnesses, some wore black "death squad" uniforms.

"The investigation into the 8th Iraqi Police Unit is only a first step," said Whitson. "It is vital that the government get the evidence to bring criminal prosecutions against those responsible, whatever their rank."

The Ministry of Interior is responsible for the country's security forces, some of which have close ties to the two principal Shia militias - the Mahdi Army and the Badr Forces. These security forces are believed to be responsible for numerous sectarian killings, operating in some cases as death squads in Baghdad and other provinces. It is not clear to what extent the ministry controls these security forces or whether they are under the effective control of the militias.

Human Rights Watch has examined scores of bodies at the Medico-Legal Institute in Baghdad over the past two years that appear to have been victims of execution-style killings, often preceded by torture. Police bring bodies of people killed in violent attacks to the institute in cases requiring criminal investigation. Victims' family members sometimes have evidence, such as eyewitness accounts of a victim's arrest, that Ministry of Interior security forces were involved in the killing. In addition, statements by ministry officials and information from international police advisers also point to direct participation or complicity of government security forces in these killings.

My God. Is HRW seriously seeking to identify Shiites from Sunnites? Screw politics, because they're all Iraqi! Anyways, the bolded parts should be of notice. The Interior Ministry's death squad was of no consequence to the Iraqi Government, as the media has, impressively, done an amazing job in Iraq to conceal this horrific fact (Max Fuller, you couldn't have said it better).

The leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood was right when he said that Saddam didn't know God, and that's why he feels no remorse over his crimes. However, he also points out that the occupiers and other governments like that of Israel are worse because they themselves have committed many crimes and gotten away them. Ariel Sharon is one: responsible for the deaths of thousands and thousands of innocent Lebanese and Palestinians during the years of the Lebanese Civil War and the Second Intifada, he now lies in a coma, with no feeling whatsoever; he can't feel pain because he doesn't know it. Amir Peretz, overseer of the destruction of much of (south) Lebanon during the last summer is another such dark figure: the 1,000+ Lebanese and Palestinians dead by his hands have made the label "war criminal" his middle name. There are others like Moshe Ya'alon, the orchestrator of the First Qana Massacre (google it), and Rehavam Zeevi - wait, that guy was already capped. And who could forget Dubya Bush and Blair? And that old coot, Rumsfeld?

Speaking of ol' Rummy, let me show you a rather old pic of him with a familiar figure:

Who could miss out on Saddam Hussein? And what the hell was he doing with that despot? Well, Counterpuncher Norman Solomon already has a few tricks up his sleeve to answer that question. Citing reputable newspaper archives, he writes:

* On Dec. 20, 1983, the Washington Post reported that Rumsfeld "visited Iraq in what U.S. officials said was an attempt to bolster the already improving U.S. relations with that country."

* Two days later, the New York Times cited a "senior American official" who "said that the United States remained ready to establish full diplomatic relations with Iraq and that it was up to the Iraqis."

* On March 29, 1984, the Times reported: "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name." Washington had some goodies for Saddam's regime, the Times account noted, including "agricultural-commodity credits totaling $840 million." And while "no results of the talks have been announced" after the Rumsfeld visit to Baghdad three months earlier, "Western European diplomats assume that the United States now exchanges some intelligence on Iran with Iraq."

* A few months later, on July 17, 1984, a New York Times article with a Baghdad dateline sketchily filled in a bit more information, saying that the U.S. government "granted Iraq about $2 billion in commodity credits to buy food over the last two years." The story recalled that "Donald Rumsfeld, the former Middle East special envoy, held two private meetings with the Iraqi president here," and the dispatch mentioned in passing that "State Department human rights reports have been uniformly critical of the Iraqi President, contending that he ran a police state."

* Full diplomatic relations between Washington and Baghdad were restored 11 months after Rumsfeld's December 1983 visit with Saddam -- who went on to use poison gas later in the decade, actions which scarcely harmed relations with the Reagan administration.

* As the most senior U.S. official to visit Iraq in six years, Rumsfeld had served as Reagan's point man for warming relations with Saddam. In 1984, the administration engineered the sale to Baghdad of 45 ostensibly civilian-use Bell 214ST helicopters. Saddam's military found them quite useful for attacking Kurdish civilians with poison gas in 1988, according to U.S. intelligence sources. "In response to the gassing," journalist Jeremy Scahill has pointed out, "sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the U.S. Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most U.S. technology. The measure was killed by the White House."

Certainment, mon amis, did Rummy not only shake hands with a well-known murderer and ethnic "cleanser", but the American government supplied him with the tools of destruction that we come to know as biological non-conventional weaponry (FAS.org). But, oh, screw that. Those were years ago, when Saddam complied with rightwing foreign policy interests of the U.S.A.'s government. Now, here they are, dictating and occupying Iraq, while more people suffer and die, and the occupation continues.

When are the real war criminals going to the gallows? I, a pessimist at best, might say that they would never answer for their crimes... at least not in this life. For this life is nothing but "a fleeting enjoyment" for those who commit mischief and seek to sow discord amongst Muslims or anyone else for that matter. Only in the Hereafter, it seems, will these people answer to their Maker for all the heinous crimes they committed. But there is hope. These people must be exposed for the true war criminals that they are, and I mean every rightwing nutcase who turned Iraq, let alone the world, into a worse place than it is now. They must be tried and brought to justice. The world's populace must wake up and indict those who oppress others and aggress against other nations for the sake of fulfilling selfish desires. There should be peace, not war, because war is the last thing that this world needs right now.

As they say... No justice, no peace!

Saracen

Racists and "The Arab Mind"

2006-10-30T17:22:00.000-08:00

During the run up to the Iraq war I found myself in many arguments. One of the most distinct in my memory involved a spirited young republican. I argued that war will not solve our problems with terrorism but will spread instability and violence. His retort was striking. He said that you must use force with Arabs. He said they only understood force. My friend, an Egyptian who spent most of her life in Sweden, decided to take over at that point. The specifics of the argument is beside the point. This argument sticks out in my mind because of the blatant racism.

Why would a person believe such a thing? Why would they hold to a dehumanizing and racist belief like that? These are questions I still consider. After reading this article in the Guardian, I might be a step closer to some answers.

I'll begin with a powerful excerpt:

Consider these statements:

"Why are most Africans, unless forced by dire necessity to earn their livelihood with 'the sweat of their brow', so loath to undertake any work that dirties the hands?"

"The all-encompassing preoccupation with sex in the African mind emerges clearly in two manifestations ..."

"In the African view of human nature, no person is supposed to be able to maintain incessant, uninterrupted control over himself. Any event that is outside routine everyday occurrence can trigger such a loss of control ... Once aroused, African hostility will vent itself indiscriminately on all outsiders."

These statements, I think you'll agree, are thoroughly offensive. You would probably imagine them to be the musings of some 19th century colonialist. In fact, they come from a book promoted by its US publisher as "one of the great classics of cultural studies", and described by Publisher's Weekly as "admirable", "full of insight" and with "an impressive spread of scholarship".

The book is not actually about Africans. Instead, it takes some of the hoariest old prejudices about black people and applies them to Arabs.

Here is more detail on the book where these quotes can be found:

The book in question is called The Arab Mind, and is by Raphael Patai, a cultural anthropologist who taught at several US universities, including Columbia and Princeton.

Here are some effects of such a book:

Hersh was discussing the chain of command that led US troops to torture Iraqi prisoners. Referring specifically to the sexual nature of some of this abuse, he wrote: "The notion that Arabs are particularly vulnerable to sexual humiliation became a talking point among pro-war Washington conservatives in the months before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

"One book that was frequently cited was The Arab Mind ... the book includes a 25-page chapter on Arabs and sex, depicting sex as a taboo vested with shame and repression."

Hersh continued: "The Patai book, an academic told me, was 'the bible of the neocons on Arab behaviour'. In their discussions, he said, two themes emerged - 'one, that Arabs only understand force, and two, that the biggest weakness of Arabs is shame and humiliation'."

Last week, my own further enquiries about the book revealed something even more alarming. Not only is it the bible of neocon headbangers, but it is also the bible on Arab behaviour for the US military.

Please read the entire article.

Books like these play a significant role in dehumanization. Arabs are turned into a homogenous and mostrous group in books like these. But this dehumanization isn't limited to this book and its readers. Similiar ideas, like the one I encountred during the run-up to the Iraq war, are circulating. These ideas are propped up with fear and menancing fictions like "Islamofascism."

A Hegelian Discourse

2006-10-29T07:53:00.000-08:00

I admit that I am no student of Philosophy. However, I must comment that after reading certain philosophical works (are they philosophical?), I started to question them from a more - you can say - "simplistic" point of view, one that does not include all the confusing mumbo jumbo in contemporary and classical Philosophy. One such person who caught my eye was a German guy named Hegel.Georg Hegel. He was a German philosopher back in the day, and had quite a cult following, both right-wingers and left-wingers.

I tend to view him in the same light as the same guy who said that "democracies can't fight each other" (which is utterly false). Why is that? Hegel, like Samuel Huntington, in his controversial yet faulty "Clash of Civilizations" theory (I wrote something about this, but I suppose Edward Said has a much better argument), provided a philosophy that is based on simplistic collectivist ideas that do not take into account the many variables that shape our world today.

However, Hegel's theory has a more realistic basis than those of the other two. He stated that society progresses and forms a system called the thesis. The noted example on the Wikipedia link is the French Revolution. The antithesis results from the counter-propositions and faults of the system; the Reign of Terror that followed the French Revolution is a shining example of this. Ensuing conflict between these two aspects would produce a synthesis, which is void of all the defects of the previous society; the French Constitution can be regarded as such a synthesis. In more simplistic words, Hegel stated his theory as follows with respect to the larger scope of human History:

"The History of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of Freedom; a progress whose development according to the necessity of its nature, it is our business to investigate."

Reflect a bit on those words. He is stating that with respect to human freedoms, the world community/human society progresses through time as more human freedoms are given rather than taken. Many people borrowed from his philosophy, most notably Karl Marx, the (co-)founder of Communism (you might want to google "Friedrich Engels" and see what you come up with). Karl Marx proposed that class conflict would be the driving force that produces the synthesis, which would, over successive generations, lead to a utopia of classless society and ultimate human (economic) freedom (let's face it: Marx loved his moolah).

If Hegel was right, we would expect humans to be happy about the state of the world... in fact, much happier than before. The truth is that the world is now a worse place than it was years ago, in terms of human freedom.

There has been a rise in despotic regimes globally, and even without the concept of government do people in certain areas enjoy limited freedoms. There are also places with a great degree of disorder. As a liberal/libertarian, I believe that freedom and order are both essential to society. Scientifically, the chance of acquiring a stable and free society diminishes with time. The Second Law of Thermodynamics can also apply to the universe in general:

"The entropy of an isolated system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value."

Entropy is the degree of disorder, and it increases with time because systems tend towards less order, which require an investment, whether it be governmental power or individual choice, or anything else that tends to require energy. The flaw in the theory comes from the idea that people these days feel worse about the world, and that people have different views. Freedom will be a necessity, but people will tend to see that security should be placed in the stead of certain principles of liberty in order to maintain the order. It has been like this over the past few centuries: regimes rise and fall because they suddenly become too autocratic. It is guaranteed that in the end, there will be a maximum state of entropy, of disorder and freedom, but that will not come anytime soon.

Sometimes, I think Hegel might be correct. Maybe I'm just too pessimistic. As a Muslim, I believe in the End of Days, when the Earth will be verdant, and human freedom will be attained. However, considering the state of the world today, we can't be too certain. With all the needless war, destruction and death that has befallen so many people, it is very hard to say that we are attaining the state that both Hegel and Marx dreamed of.

But who knows? Only time will tell if Hegel was right...

Saracen

Bushisms... Bushisms... Bushisms...

2006-10-18T08:34:00.000-07:00

Slate.com has published a full list of (mis)quotations from the pResident of the United States of America. After looking at this page, I really doubted that he studied at Yale University; if he did, I'm pretty sure his status got him his grad degree. Anyways, getting back to the main topic, it's just that every time Bush makes a speech, he has to either fumble somewhere, or make himself look stupid so that people will "like" him and take him for his "innocence": after all, he appears to us as a dolt and a pathetic fool, so "making mistakes" (i.e. war on Iraq) would be excusable for him.

The fact is that someone in his diminutive and shameless stature who just prattles on nonsense doesn't deserve to be pResident more than he deserves to be some cattle rancher working on a farm in Texas. I hate to sound racist, because if I did, that wasn't really a racist insult against Texans. It's just that someone like Bush does not have the intellectual capacity to grasp power in government, and that if he were to control something, he should just stick to managing his cattle ranch: after all, it is his property, isn't it? Let's jump to the first and latest Bushism:

"You're one of the outstanding leaders in a very important part of the world. I want to thank you for strategizing our discussions."
—Meeting with the prime minister of Malaysia, New York, N.Y., Sept. 18, 2006

Oh, nice. I want to thank you, prime minister of Malaysia, for strategizing our discussions. In other words, I want to thank you for making it here on time in N.Y. and planning to come and visit me beforehand so we can talk over things, like all slimy politicians do. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, Mr. Bush. It makes sense to hotel valets who park big limos.

The War On Iraq has been one of Bush's biggest "blunders", even though he intentionally manipulated intelligence to favor an all-out war against this "eval terrahrist" Saddam dude. Well, he proved our point in that he actually did fabricate the connections between Saddam and 9-11:

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror."
—Interview with CBS News, Washington D.C., Sept. 6, 2006

Thanks for being such a man at this point as to openly admit that you did fabricate the war allegations by connecting Iraq to the war on terror, and the "war on terror" (which is actually a war OF terror) is nothing but a sham to begin with.

Sadly, the idiocy doesn't end there. The pResident seems to distinguish between the United States and America. Well, no duh, as America is a bicontinental landmass made of North America and South America. However, considering his small intellectual capacity, that's not what he meant when he said,

"I've reminded the prime minister—the American people, Mr. Prime Minister, over the past months that it was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship."
—Washington, D.C., June 29, 2006

So, there are 2 new nations: the United States is one of them. America is the other. But you all know that both are more often than not used interchangeably. What Bush did was probaly not even grammatical: he claimed that the United States and America are two separate entities that, by default, have close relationships. Then I guess that the United Kingdom and Great Britian have a close relationship as well? No kidding, Sherlock: they're both the same country!

There's also this gem of a quote:

"I was not pleased that Hamas has refused to announce its desire to destroy Israel."
—Washington, D.C., May 4, 2006

So, in short, Bush is not happy that Hamas doesn't want to destroy Israel. I guess you need the competition. Better yet, take a look at what he said here:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
—Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

It's no surprise, then, that Bush is harming his own people and his country with all the laws that he passes and all the protocols, such as Kyoto, that he didn't sign, eh?

In a press conference in Jordan, when he was with King Abdullah II, Bush said about the terrorists,

"And I just -- I cannot speak strongly enough about how we must collectively get after those who kill in the name of -- in the name of some kind of false religion."

So, he actively claims his implicit intolerance for Islam, openly dubbed "a false religion" by many far-right-wing extremist Christians in the U.S., in this quotation, and this was supposedly done in a press conference next to King Abdullah II, who is supposedly a Muslim.

Here's another:

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier... just so long as I'm the dictator".

Or this:

"I believe that a prosperous, democratic Pakistan will be a steadfast partner for America, a peaceful neighbor for India, and a force for freedom and moderation in the Arab world."

Two problems: Pakistan is far from being a democracy. But any dictatorship like that of Musharraf's that is allied to the U.S. is in the eyes of the U.S. a democracy. The second problem is that Pakistan is NOT EVEN PART OF THE ARAB WORLD. So yeah, somebody get him an atlas!

Well, there are a lot of Bushisms out there, and it would take me forever to debunk and debase them one by one, but whatever it is, all these (mis)quotations prove that George Bush is more than just a pathetic disgrace to the American government. I can't imagine how Americans are going to survive a bit more than a couple of years under his crony-ridden administration. Stupidity like that of Bush knows no bounds, and I just hope that the sooner his term is over, the better: I'd like to see that guy and all other neocons like him get rounded up and jailed... or placed under house arrest in their own mansions and cattle ranches, because that's where they deserve to be... away from power which they have no control over and have abused for too long to make this world a worse place than it really is.

Saracen

P.S. Even worse is what's making news these days: the U.S. allegedly threatened the Pakistani leader that the U.S. would bomb the nation "to the stone age" if it didn't cooperate with the U.S. government, according to the London Times. But agh, well, the Pakistani leader himself is a clout and a brutal dictator who should be brought to justice the same way Bush should receive his: impeachment, and permanent removal from power...

An Exit Strategy

2006-10-11T20:05:00.000-07:00

First, a mea culpa of my own: I should be blogging more! After a few months ruminating in my own pessimism I figure total silence is even less useful. So on we go...

In this little article here an American exit strategy for Iraq is discussed. No doubt an exit is needed...it is impossible to doubt the need for a massively different strategy when the current troop deployment only seems to be sightly slowing the descent towards civil war. While I believe the Americans have a reaponsibility to clean up the mess they made, it hardly seems possible to "win hearts and minds" when the local population knows you're there for the oil (or maybe to keep a buffer against Iran?).

I won't discuss every point of the larger article (maybe at a later date) but I think a true international stabalization force with substantial Muslim involvement is absolutely necessary. Maybe, just maybe, if the American presence in the region humbly devotes itself to reconstruction (including paying most of the bill) Iraqis might respect and support that.

The country can not be abandoned to become another terrorist training camp and anarchaic breeding ground for crime and chaos, but nothing will improve unless the global community joins hands and massively increases its efforts in Iraq.

Just don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen.

Why Am I NOT Surprised at Bush?

2006-09-22T19:50:00.000-07:00

In the news, Bush gives an emotional "war on terror" speech against Iraq in the United Nations HQ in New York.

I swear to God that the only "new" thing in that tidbit was that he did it in the United Nations HQ building. He does that all the time, and I'm just not impressed. He'll keep parrotting the same non-sense over and over again, especially when that has been dismissed by many people. Let's see what Dumbya said to the assembly of people:

We have accomplished much in the last year — in Afghanistan and beyond. We have much yet to do — in Afghanistan and beyond. Many nations represent here have joined in the fight against global terror — and the people of the United States are grateful.

The "people of the United States" he is referring to are actually the neocons who support this war, and are grateful that the U.N. and others didn't stop them. They're not grateful for their government, but grateful that their interests are being achieved, regardless of who is being harmed in the process. He goes on to prattle some "emotional" historical nonsense about the U.N.

The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war — the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created a United Nations Security Council, so that — unlike the League of Nations — our deliberations would be more than talk, and our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators, broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicate ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all.

Yeah, the will and wickedness of Bush destroyed Iraq and prolonged the Israel-Palestine conflict. The resolutions that he spoke of are most certainly not the 200+ resolutions that have been filed against Israel and have repeatedly been vetoed by the U.S. Security Council member, John Bolton, were they? And considering that it was his government that was installing puppet governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, as did the previous warmongering, rightwing governments before him, I think he should have just kept his mouth shut: there is no way I am going to "respect" Bush for what he said regarding this.

Now, here's a part that is most definitely a ruse to guise his motives regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict:

Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts — ethnic and religious strife that is ancient but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living beside Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. My nation will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.

If that is true, then please don't send bombs to Israel and complicitly screw up the infrastructures of both Gaza and Lebanon... please?

He then goes on to prattle about WMD's in Iraq, which were absolutely long-gone by the time he invaded, and then he goes on to implicitly threaten the United Nations:

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding or will it be irrelevant?

That is, "Will the United Nations make a resolution acceptable to neoconservative demands? Will the United Nations let us do the resolutions in our favor? And if you don't, we'll turn the United Nations HQ into another Iraqi Oil Ministry (in case you didn't know, the Iraqi Oil Ministry was the first building captured in the invasion of Baghdad and cordoned off by military personnel). The hypocrisy stinks more than petroleum does in its natural form. He's too blind to see the action of the Coalition, and is of the belief that his neocons, and Israel, can "do no wrong"... Give me a !@#$iNg break.

But seriously, I'm wasting my time with a man who has the I.Q. of a toaster.

Saracen

Great... A "Unity" Government... or Another Attempt @ Coup D'etat?

2006-09-17T15:31:00.000-07:00

Palestinian politics is messy. Really messy. Not just because of how the Palestinians deal with the death, destruction and devastation that Israel deals them almost daily, but also because of internal affairs that go awry in favor of one faction over another, and therefore undermines the Palestinian Cause and any sense of unity amongst the Palestinian people and the leadership that supposedly represents them. While Fatah may have slimy hands, Hamas is undoubtedly not left with a clean slate, with all the terrorist attacks it carries out against innocent Israelis. However, regarding internal affairs, it's always the goons and snakes of Fatah that undermine any sort of unity or progress; Hamas doesn't do as much, though, as it has only recently ventured into the political sphere, but its politicians are as incompetent.

Recently, we've heard news of Mahmoud Abbas, probably the slimiest, sleaziest Fatah politician second to Mahmoud Dahlan, asking and appealing for a unity government, and "brokering" some sort of unity plan with Hamas. Yeah, and I can pop the tires of a 4X4 with a toothpick. Well, this thing really didn't last long. I know that another blog, Palestinian Pundit, covered this story better than I did, but what happened was that Abbas sought to dissolve the parliament in favor of creating a "unity" government.

However, the latest news seem to suggest the opposite: he completely broke off all talks with Hamas... that is, unless Hamas recognizes Israel. It just comes to show how much of a puppet and a crook this Abbas is: he's obviously vying for power. But why, exactly, did he suspend those talks?

The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, has frozen talks on forming a unity government after Hamas said it would not accept existing peace deals with Israel, two of his aides said.

I feel like making the word "existing" bigger, bolder, and probably with a red highlight right now, because I can't stress enough. Hamas won't accept the existing "peace deals" with Israel because Israel's peace deals, that of Oslo and Camp David, were a load of bull and nothing but subversion and acceptance to prolonged occupation, as well as denial of autonomy.

But there's more to this story than meets the eye. According to USAToday (thanks, Tony), Abbas is demanding more concessions from Hamas. Yasser Abd Rabbo (more like Yasser Abd Yasser because of his self-serving interests) claimed that Abbas was trying to convince Hamas to moderate and "modernize" their views. Even worse, officials in Fatah said that

Abbas will try to convince Bush that the alternative to a Fatah-Hamas government is civil war and ask him to soften the demands to allow Hamas to sign on to a coalition...

Great. I can almost smell the unity here, especially after Abbas planned to meet Bush next week, as well as Olmert, Israeli P.M. and Abbas's twin counterpart. Like most issues I come across, this is nothing new: America and Israel always deal with puppets within Arab and Palestinian governments so they may achieve their goals of seeking unity and discord. I believe Tony said it well in his post: this seeking for discord and disunity is always what the Zionist-American alliance sought from the very beginning. Look at what they did to Iraq, and what Israel did to Lebanon regarding Hizbullah (and the leaflets Israel dropped to turn the Lebanese against Hizbullah). Certainly, I wouldn't be surprised as well if Israel successfully incites a civil war, for Palestinian factions have indeed done so during the Lebanese Civil War. But what can you expect? Abbas is just another "favorite Palestinian" of Bush and Kundaraleeza Rice, eh? Considering that there is no Palestinian cabinet at the moment (the Hamas cabinet members resigned from their positions last week), Palestine's government is vulnerable to an Israeli takeover or a Fatah takeover on part of Abbas, for "security reasons". Oh, well, we'll see how this plays out, but these times are getting very edgy. And then again, Olmert might just be up to his old tricks, just like all Israel's prime ministers, from Menachem Begin to Ehud Barak.

Hamas has to come to its senses. I believe that it should renounce violence, as should Israel, for Israel is not above moral criticism. The question of recognition should only come when Palestinians in the pre-1967 areas are given a right to return to these areas, and all settlements are either removed or placed under Palestinian sovereignity. Furthermore, I also believe that Israel should stop all roadblocks and halt the projects that are dividing not only the Palestinian lands, but the Palestinian people. If it wants peace, it shouldn't at the same time hit the Palestinians below the belt. As for Abbas, that guy should be thrown into the slammer, along with all traitors in the Fatah and Hamas (yes, I said HAMAS) parties. If there should be unity, all traitors to the Palestinian cause should be told to change their ways. Yes, they should represent the Palestinian people in as patriotic a way as possible, as I am anti-Nationalist. An independent Palestine will only come out when there are no Palestinians in the government who would want to subvert any of Palestinian autonomy over Palestinian lands and give them up to the Zionist state. But then again, even as I muse and vie for such unity, I remain, sadly, pessimistic about the outcome.

Saracen

Moral Clarity and WWII Nostalgia

2006-09-13T18:49:00.000-07:00

Can America find moral clarity in it's memories of WWII?

In a series of speeches over the past couple of weeks, the Bush administration has tried to connect the GWOT (Global war on terror) to the WWII struggle against Nazism. When I read their statements, I figured they were becoming desparate. After all, it is common to call one's opponents Nazis out of desperation and it's commonplace in weak arguments (specifically Internet arguments, see Godwin's law). I've tried to write several posts about this topic but each line of research takes me far away from a core point. This is because the WWII analogy is a rich phenomena. It's a phenomena that involves historical narrative, America's national psychology, the echoes of the horrors of WWII, heroism, fear, viture, and the most complex feelings we have about ourselves as Americans. It involves more things too but I must avoid them to maintain focus. Like I wrote above, I've been trying to write about this for a couple of weeks.

While researching this issue I discovered that WWII nostalgia didn't come out of nowhere. In a piece titled The Good War on Terror, Christopher Hayes describes the emergence of WWII nostalgia in 90s popular culture:

The late ’90s was a strange time in American history. With the Cold War over, the country faced no overarching enemy for the first time in decades. The United States seemed possessed of no greater national purpose than making money through IPOs and an ever-expanding Dow. Our politics were dominated by the petty and trivial: from school uniforms to the president’s sex life.

Memories of former glory rushed in to fill this vacuum. In 1994, the 50th anniversary of D-Day prompted both an NBC special commemoration hosted by Tom Brokaw and the publication of historian Stephen Ambrose’s D-Day June 6, 1994: The Climactic Battle of World War II, which would go on to sell 800,000 copies. The book attracted the attention of Steven Spielberg—a man with a preternatural sense of the zeitgeist—who would launch the pop cultural phenomenon in all its excess in 1998 with Saving Private Ryan, which opened to rave reviews and grossed $433 million.

An explosion of associated products came on the heels of Saving Private Ryan’s commercial success: Brokaw’s three “Greatest Generation” books (which sold 5 million copies), a book about veterans of the Pacific Theater called Flags of Our Fathers (a film adaptation produced by Spielberg and directed by Clint Eastwood will be released this fall), and a clunking Bruce Willis vehicle called Hart’s War. With such an irresistible financial incentive, Ambrose would generate 10 more books between 1994 and 2001, including a distilled history of the war for “young readers” called The Good Fight. Tom Hanks, who starred in Saving Private Ryan, became a kind of WWII commemoration crusader, cutting a series of radio ads that advocated for a World War II memorial to be built on the Mall. After a seven-year-campaign, it was dedicated in 2004.

Nostalgia quickly descended into kitsch: In 1999, People named “The World War II Soldier” one of its “25 Most Intriguing People,” right next to Ricky Martin and Ashley Judd. But unlike so many pop culture phenomena, this one had legs, extending into the new millennium when Hollywood released the summer blockbuster Pearl Harbor in May 2001. Months later, HBO broadcast with great fanfare “Band of Brothers,” a miniseries based on Ambrose’s eponymous book about the exploits of the famed “E Company” as it fought its way across Europe. Produced by Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg, the series debuted on Sept. 9, 2001.

Hayes' piece sheds light on WWII nostalgia. It is not just another of the increasingly desparate arguments by the Bush administration to justify the war in Iraq. WWII nostaligia is a widespread cultural phenomena rooted in the 90s. In fact, Bush's campaign invoked it:

In his essay “Operation Enduring Analogy: World War II, the War on Terror and the Uses of Historical Memory,” David Hoogland Noon, a history professor at the University of Alaska, Southeast, writes that even in his first campaign George W. Bush “consistently referenced World War II not simply to justify his own policy aims, but more importantly as a cultural project as well as an ongoing gesture of self-making,” positioning himself as “an heir to the reputed greatest generation of American leaders.”

“In the world of our fathers, we have seen how America should conduct itself,” Bush said in a 1999 speech at the Citadel. Now, the moment had come “to show that a new generation can renew America’s purpose.” Throughout both his campaigns, Bush would go out of his way to criticize the dominant ethos of “If it feels good, do it,” instead calling for a “culture in which each of us understands we’re responsible for the decisions we make.”

There are many possible reasons as to why Bush emerged with political discourse built around nostalgia for WWII ("greatest generation" type discourse) and resentement for the perceived relativism of the 60s. These reasons could be the rise of megachurches and their brand of religiosity. It could be anger at President Clinton's impropieties. It could be a genuine admiration for the actions of America's again WWII veterans. It could be the rise of Clinton-reactive republicans and their conservative media mouthpieces. Either way, I don't think President George W. Bush is possible in an American without the culture wars.

Counter-culture resentment is only part of WWII nostalgia. The cultures might be furious but they are not real war. The nostalgia doesn't restrict itself to war as a metaphor, it focuses on real war. But this nostalgia doesn't really approach the complexities of the war experience, it focuses on the enemy and decisive action against that enemy:

The WWII that emerges from accounts of the late ’90s is one scrubbed clean of its moral complexity. There is no mention of American big business financing the build-up of the Nazi war machine, no America First campaign determined not to shed American blood for European Jews, no firebombing of civilians in Dresden. The war was difficult, yes, and bloody, but pure and just: a battle, not to put too fine a point on it, between good and evil.

In the hands of the men who would come to dominate American military policy in the Bush administration, this Manichean framework was a useful template to apply indiscriminately to any and all of the military confrontations they had long sought. To the neocons and some breakaway lefties, al-Qaeda members are “Islamofascists,” 21st century heirs to the murderous ideologies of Nazism, fascism and totalitarianism. It is always Munich 1938, every dictator is a “tyrant,” and anyone opposed to a state of perpetual war is guilty of “appeasement.”

In the militarism of the WWII nostalgia, America's enemies are clear and our only goal is their defeat. This militarism (and the war it demands) is "pure and just." It is a simple world where only the will to fight is necessary, there is no need to reflect on the fight itself. It is a world with no gray areas. It is a world without questions or comlexities. It is a world divided between friends and foes and a world constituted only through the fight itself.

In a world where moral problems are complex there are no easy answers. Contemporary America is such a world. It is natural that people yearn for simplier issues and apparent enemies. Whether it be poverty, disease, meaninglessness, bankruptcy, broken homes, or any other contemporary problem there is one salient feature of the worlds moral challenges; they are complex. It is no wonder that people desire to blame these complexities on the 60s and assume that all moral complexities have their origin in an ideology of relativism embodied by hippies or Clintons. It is no wonder that people look to the noble soldier of WWII and the clear evil of Nazism to escape problems like health care or poverty. So it isn't surprising that painting the whole world with a war against good and evil might serve some psychic needs, specifically the need for certainty.

But this type of certainty (or moral clarity as some call it) has a very negative effect:

Making WWII the touchstone for martial combat allowed the militarists we politely call “neoconservatives” to imbue all wars with the same moral purpose. The Greatest Generation nostalgia succeeded in helping to subtly shift the burden of proof, such that wars were presumed innocent and righteous, as opposed to the far more sane position that war is guilty until proven innocent.

If there’s a single guiding ethos for the Bush’s administration’s foreign policy, it is this: that contrary to the age-old insight about the “fog of war,” war brings moral clarity even as it clouds the senses. In the first days of the escalating missile and rocket strikes between Israel and Hezbollah, Dan Bartlett, a White House aide, explained that “[The president] mourns the loss of every life. Yet out of this tragic development, he believes a moment of clarity has arrived.”

I'm not sure the Bush administration is manipulating America through words that stimulate it's notalgia for WWII. I believe this nostalgia is responds to a very powerful need in America for meaning and certiainty. They could just as easily be manipulating the resentment many Americans have for liberalism, relativism, and what they see as the degeneracy of American society. But I happen to think this isn't purposeful manipulation, I believe that the Bush administration is a sucker for WWII nostalgia. I believe this administration believes that America has fallen from grace because of hippies and sexual liberation. Here is one reason I believe this:

Bush told a group of conservative journalists that he notices more open expressions of faith among people he meets during his travels, and he suggested that might signal a broader revival similar to other religious movements in history. Bush noted that some of Abraham Lincoln's strongest supporters were religious people "who saw life in terms of good and evil" and who believed that slavery was evil. Many of his own supporters, he said, see the current conflict in similar terms.
"A lot of people in America see this as a confrontation between good and evil, including me," Bush said during a 1 1/2 -hour Oval Office conversation on cultural changes and a battle with terrorists that he sees lasting decades. "There was a stark change between the culture of the '50s and the '60s -- boom -- and I think there's change happening here," he added. "It seems to me that there's a Third Awakening."

Bush, his administration, and most of his supporters believe they have a unique role in history. They believe they are the good and just warrirors leading a global war against the progeny of Nazis and Communists. They believe this strongly enough that they will begin wars. I don't think that they can be swayed from this view because doubt would put one on the side of the enemy. They will resist this with every ounce of their strength because being against the enemy is the only moral identity they have and fighting the enemy is their only moral imperative.

Contradictions in the Policies of the American "War on Terrorism"

2006-09-12T18:01:00.000-07:00

As'ad Abu Khalil has recently published this excellent article that highlights the many contradictions in America's so-called "War on Terror", and underscores the aims of what is in reality a war of terror aimed at subverting the globe under political and economical hegemony. In it, he outlines what he indicates as double standards on part of the American government regarding its foreign policy, and how in effect Bush spreads not democracy, but dictatorship and corruption.

Bush saw 9-11 as an excuse to sacrifice the liberty and rights of his people in the name of National Security and in "defense" in this "war on terror". This manifested itself in the so-called "Patriot" Act, which should be renamed to the Treason Act, for betraying someone's privacy and freedom in the name of "security" is not at all Patriotic or even (ugh) Nationalistic. However, to Bush's advantage, 9-11 drew out more support for the President at first as it occurred during the first few months of his pResidency (in case you were wondering, I meant to stress on the "R" and downplay the "p"). The article itself continues to explain how Arab regimes are involved, and how this War of Terror is supplanting more terrorism, not "getting rid of it".

For the sake of time, I will outline the main points that As'ad has discussed. These main points involve goals of this farcical war that Bush himself has not mentioned, but which are in fact in effect as we speak. One of the goals involves:

الإصرار على وحدانية السيطرة الأميركية العالمية (سياسيا واقتصاديا وثقافيا) ومحاربة (بكل الوسائل) معارضيها.

Translated, this means strengthening the American political, cultural, and economical hegemony, and crushing down all opposition by any means possible. This was quite evident in the past 50 years, during the "Cold War", when America ousted many democratically-elected leaders of dozens of states for the sole purpose that those leaders resisted American interests in the region because they harm the interests of the local populace. Such states include Greece, Iran, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Cuba, among many others. Sadly, it seems that most Nationalist American rightwing politicians are still stuck in a Cold-War era mentality: there's "us" and "them", even though "them" involves people largely disassociated with the "Clash of Civilizations" that America is continuously promoting as a chief propaganda buzzphrase for the so-called "War on Terror" (but I think they're getting smarter: a neocon on this forum once called me an "Izlamocentrist" for defending Islam, thereby scoring another point for neoconservative vocabulary).

While the second and third points pretty much outline the first point, but with emphasis on the Middle East and Islamic countries, and with the third point stating that diplomacy is not an option when it comes to crushing resistance to American demands, the fourth point is as follows:

فرض رقابة مشددة على العرب والمسلمين وتحركاتهم حول العالم, خصوصا في الدول الغربية.

, or surveillance on Muslims and Arabs and their whereabouts, especially in Western nations. While many other nations refuse to comply with such a policy, America's Muslims feel under constant scrutiny, with all the wiretapping that has been going on.

The fifth point involves something closer to home:

النظر إلى النموذج الصهيوني في فرض إرادة إسرائيل بالقوة المفرطة على الشعب الفلسطيني بعين الإعجاب، بالرغم من الفشل التاريخي للمشروع الصهيوني بسبب إرادة المقاومة والرفض لدى شعب فلسطين.

This refers to the rejection of Zionism by most Arabs and Muslims in the MidEast, and underscores the failure of Israel against Hizbullah during the late summer, and how Israel continues to undermine not only the PA, but passive Palestinian resistance. As'ad refers to places like Bil'in, a scene of passive resistance to Zionist landgrabbing and colonialism, and where such resistance is often crushed by the Israeli army, or is undermind by settler activity. This, of course, is terrorism: innocent civilians are driven to fear whenever they resist state policies that seek to harm them or uproot them from their homes. Nothing new, really, but America's silence in the issue seems to hint at the unwavering support for Israel, and complicity with crushing such passive resistance... or it may mean that Bush doesn't get his news from fair and balanced news sources.

America is also after this fifth goal:

الاستعانة بالأمم المتحدة عند الحاجة خصوصا بوجود أمين عام مطواع مثل كوفي أنان, وتجاهل المنظمة الدولية عند الحاجة أيضا.

It's not surprising that the U.S. has hypocritically made use of International Law to suit its own ends. International Law is usually against the smaller guys whenever the U.S. is in control, but let's cut to the chase. America has vetoed every last one of the 200+ resolutions filed against Israel for violations of international law. However, it used International Law to its own advanatage when it pointed out U.N. security resolutions in favor of the War on Iraq, which was unjustified to begin with. You might be as outraged as I am, but when you're talking about a neoconservative war machine that has been controlling the U.N. for over 50 years just to suit its own advantages, then you'll understand the duplicity behind the Bush Administration. Also,

عدم التمييز بين المنظمات العربية والإسلامية ووصف معارضي الهيمنة الأميركية بالإرهاب.

America seeks to blur the distinction between Arab and Muslim nations (which is probably advantageous in the sense that all Muslim nations might unite, but disadvantageous in the sense that the U.S. has a scapegoat to blame for the "mistakes" in his "War on Terror", and therefore unite the world against Muslims), and also associates all opponents of American imperialism with terrorism. That is in essence totalitarian: Bush seeks to shut out all criticism of his "War on Terror", which reminds me of the time he actually criticized Amnesty International for speaking out against the prisoner abuse common in American jails, like the famous one on Guantamo Bay. Now, I know I might have said this before, but think of a spoilt kid who is allowed to do whatever he wants. He does something wrong, and absolves himself from responsibility of his actions. Now, replace "kid" with "Bush" and you won't see much of a difference there.

The final point I will illustrate is pretty much the same as the first one, but it's more explicit:

محاولة تنصيب "حامد كرزاي" في كل بلدان العالم العربي وعدم السماح لحلفاء أميركا ولو بهامش صغير من حرية الحركة والتعبير.

This means installing a "Hamid Karzai" in every nation of this Earth (i.e. a leader who would mainly give in to America's economical and political demands at the expense of his own people, and allow for a pervasion of harmful elements of American culture that might corrupt the culture of the nation in question), even at the expense of the freedom of the people of the said nation. In extreme cases, the leader would be more like the Shah Reza Pahlevi of Iran, or the former Nazi collaborator and brutal anti-socialist dictator, George Papadopoulos. This, of course, is contradictory to America's stated goal of allowing nations to be democratic and being able to choose whatever leader they want, even if America's choice doesn't provide as much freedom and reform as the best one available.

I think these contradictions should be self-evident. Bush's empty use of "democracy", "freedom", and "civilization" are what they are: empty words that drive the neoconservative masses against Muslims and Arabs, as well as those who oppose American foreign policy, etc. I just hope that Americans who voted for Bush for his second term come to their senses and vote for a leader who seriously knows the meanings of the 3 aforementioned words. Only time will tell...

Saracen

Patriotism: a Reasonable Sentiment

2006-09-09T16:50:00.000-07:00

It's been quite a long while since I have last condemned the irrational sentiment that is Nationalism, and how it leads people to blind and unquestionable support of the nation that they belong to. I didn't discuss Patriotism in the detail that it deserves, and on that, I will do so now. But first, let's define patriotism:

Patriotism denotes positive and supportive attitudes to a 'fatherland' (Latin patria), by individuals and groups.

However, there is no mention of negation of support for other nation states in general; if so, then that would be Nationalism, not Patriotism.

But what else characterizes Patriotism? First, let's see what makes a Patriot. A Patriot is someone who stands up for the core values of his/her nation state and at the same time morally questions the actions of the government of that state. Nationalism requires that those who adhere to it never question what their government does, as their government always does what's "good" for the state, or what is in the best interests of the state... even if those interests harm the interests and/or well-being of other states. Patriotism, on the other hand, requires that a nation achieve its interests while at the same time strictly avoiding detrimenting the interests and/or well-being of another state that just happens to be involved in the certain affairs of achieving that certain interest.

A Patriot, therefore, loves his/her state, but does not regard it superior to other states. A Patriot is also aware that other nation-states are important to the people of that state in the same way that the Patriot's state is important to him/her. In a world full of nation-states, all nation-states are regarded by Patriots as being equal, but the only thing that ties a Patriot with his/her state is that he/she identifies with that state. The world is a neighborhood of nation-states living next to each other, and its inhabitants make up the "family" living in that nation-state. A good neighbor, then, is one who knows how to respect himself/herself and those living around him/her. Therefore, a good neighbor is a Patriot. A Nationalist, however, disregards the needs of others, and their privacy/integrity, including his/her own, and thus makes a bad neighbor.

Therefore, a Patriot respects the sovereignity of all nation-states should they recognize his/her own. This means that, contrary to Nationalism, Patriotism holds that the govermental/political institutions that control the state are neither superior nor inferior to the corresponding institutions in other states, and denies any involvement that would intervene in the affairs of these political institutions. Patriotism upholds the moral that all nations have the right to self-rule, and that each nation, even if it can't govern itself, should be left so that the people of that nation gradually usurp the current political discrepancy and fix it by themselves. Also, as a Patriot, one keeps in mind that other nations have different needs and requirements, and therefore a political institution imposed on that state might have adverse consequences.

What makes Patriotism even more beautiful than it really appears is that it also delineates and undermines any attempt at escaping from accountability for actions carried out by the government that are in clear violation of international and/or humanitarian law. By this, Patriotism acknowledges that those in the government are men, not gods, and therefore their actions can be either right or wrong. There are a lot of governments out there that commit indefensible crimes, and yet nationalists find any way whatsoever to justify the crime or clear the government from any wrongdoing. Sometimes, such governmental actions may not be in the best interest of the people, and may in fact harm them. Therefore, Patriots take the stand and dissent, for dissent is the highest form of Patriotism. A Patriot acknowledges what his/her government has wronged against others, whether it includes the people of the same nation or the people of another nation. In that way, a government may therefore take full responsibility of the actions it commits and works to find a solution and implement it. This restores the integrity of the nation-state, not just the government.

Having said that, I regard myself as a Patriot. I acknowledge what the PLO (Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organization) has done to innocent Lebanese, Israelis and even Palestinians during its first years, and I am at odds with the Palestinian Authority to begin with. Many of its members are self-serving, and do not work for the good of the people. I also condemn Hamas's terrorism against Israelis as much as I condemn Israeli terrorism against the Palestinians and other Arabs. I am not a blind follower of my people, the Palestinians. I know our cause is just, and some day, God willing, we will be free from the Israeli occupation. However, I stand against those who "hijack" the Palestinian cause for their ends, or take it to a Nationalistic and racist extreme. I also despise Zionist Nationalists who seek to oppose any peace settlement and advocate more control on the Palestinian areas and people. I am Anti-Nationalist in general, and I already explained why I believe that Nationalism is an irrational sentiment. I am a Patriot: I love my nation, but I love humanity as well, and my nation is not above nor below other nations.

Patriotism is a seriously reasonable sentiment. It's better to be a Patriot, and at the same time condemn Nationalism and whatever forms that seek to obliterate the identities of others, as well as their right to identify themselves. I'm not interested in politics, which is why I view these affairs as an observer. I side with no one, but I identify myself with the Palestinian people. That doesn't make you any more or less Israeli, Arab, American, English, Chinese, Japanese, Pakistani, Indian, Italian, Spanish, French, German, Canadian, Brazilian or whatever nationality you identify yourself with. Be proud of who you are, and at the same time acknowledge humanity in that all people are the same; where they come from or what nation they identify with is of no importance when it comes to dealing with them as people.

So, I therefore conclude with the same advice I gave you last time: Be a Patriot, not a Nationalist.

Saracen

The Basis of Religious Liberalism

2006-09-07T08:29:00.000-07:00

Liberalism is a popular political movement. It is mainly secular in nature. However, a new breed of liberalism is on the rise that is based on the same good principles of secular liberalism. That breed of liberalism is religious liberalism, and I'm going to tell you more about it.

Whenever you think of religion and government at the same time, the only brand that comes to mind is theocracy. You think of nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran. You might also think of the ancient kingdoms ruled by David and then his son, Solomon. Repressive rules come to mind: men and women are probably segregated as much as possible. Gun control is enforced, drugs are regulated (I hate drugs, because of what they do to your body, but regulating medicinal drugs is ridiculous), modes of entertainment are almost completely prohibited in public, among other things. Also, women are forced to cover their entire bodies. You feel that such a conservative society is close-minded and not open to principles of freedom and multiculturalism.

Such a government would be authoritarian in nature, and, like most authoritarian governments, would seek to control your life and what you do bit by bit. You could say that such a government is "playing" the role of a higher power, ultimately God. Regardless of religious beliefs, God is the Ultimate Authority, and no human being can usurp His Majesty and His position. And it is our job as believers in God to usurp and turn the tables on anyone who seeks to take that position. That's initiating a religiously liberal rule.

Hang on... what about the code of religious liberalism? That is, what is it and what's the basis of it? The idea is that God is the Ultimate Authority, and that He created us so as to test us and see if we follow His Word or not. It is not up to anyone else other than a certain person to define his/her own actions and carry them out; in the end, God will judge the person for his/her actions. Gun control is abolished: whether the person decides to use it for good (defense) or bad (murder) is up to him/her. Drugs shouldn't be regulated, but, again, everyone has a choice on whether to use it or not. Abortion should be met with the same perspective. Also, privatization should be maximized: the government should not seek to practice unnecessary authority and intrude into fiscal efficiencies. Affirmative action and other racist policies should be erased, because in the eyes of God, we are all equal. Taxes should be minimized, as giving from the less able (citizens) to the more able (government) is akin to stealing, and we all know how God views this crime.

Well, there's more to religious liberalism, but I'm going to be dealing with it in parts, this time in accordance with Islamic teachings (and I assume henceforth that they are also compatible with teachings from other religions). I will be covering abortion, drugs, fiscal matters (namely taxation), affirmative action, and other things. The series will also get you deeper into my political philosophy, and will help you learn more about it. I know that many of you don't believe in God, but if you think that religiously-minded people can't become liberals... think again.

Saracen

The Lull Before the Storm's Full Fury?

2006-09-04T07:12:00.000-07:00

For the past few weeks, Israel and Lebanon have faced an uneasy ceasefire. However, there have been other developments that seem to indicate tensions that are possibly on the rise... again. While Hizbullah stands up for itself in demanding that UNIFIL forces should not disarm its militias, Israel seems to finally give way to negotiations, amidst criticisms from its own people and other MP's in the Knesset, especially, surprisingly, rightwingers who demand for Olmert's resignation (so do reservists, who have camped outside the Knesset demanding Olmert to step down from power).

What I find strange, though, is that the blame lies on those who stood up for Lebanon when Israel pummelled it with mortar fire and "precision" bombs. That's for due part, since Hizbullah has been notorious for anti-Zionist rhetoric. On the other hand, the use of force was imbalanced, and rhetoric resounding from Israeli officials and politicians only went as far, yet rarely have they been reported in the Western media. Yet, there has been this new up and coming development regarding Israeli officials facing war crime allegations, according to Al Jazeera. This is a good development: Israel just can't escape justice, because justice has a way of finding those who have committed injustice, or have been complicit with it. The use of rhetoric on part of Israelis in public conferences might be used against those same officials. This, of course, should be noted. For example, there was this one Israeli official who agreed that if Hizbullah were to strike with rockets, Israel would respond by

"getting rid of a village in Lebanon".

Doesn't sound so pleasant now, doesn't it?

There's more. Reuters reported on Olmert's threat to Hizbullah that if Tel Aviv were attacked, Lebanon's entire infrastructure would be wiped out. Strange that this website picked it up, but none of the other news agencies did. The hawkish defense minister, Amir Peretz, has repeatedly threatened Lebanon throughout the course of the war, and, with the blood of hundreds of Lebanese and Palestinians on his hands, could very well join the line of Zionist war criminals like Ariel Sharon and Moshe Ya'alon, who was notorious for carrying out the Qana massacre in Lebanon 10 years ago.

Returning to Palestine, the situation isn't looking up. With the E-1 project still in full swing, Olmert's appeals for peace are becoming ever more farcical. These "peace appeals" started as a promise if his party won the elections in March. Yet, even then, he wasn't willing to concede:

"We must preserve the main settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] and we will fix the route of the security barrier beyond which we will no longer remain."

This is why I hate politicians in general: they make false promises in their election campaigns, then resort to their own selfish desires afterwards. The problem is that the settlement of Ma'ale Adumim literally splits the West Bank in 2. Furthermore, Israel's unilateralist activity continues in defiance of Palestinian demands, as settlement expansion has sharply increased in the past few weeks. Worse still, Israeli settler population has swelled. I wouldn't consider this a problem if Ma'ale Adumim was incorporated into a future Palestinian state should the two-state solution work out. However, a larger settler population still under Israeli jurisdiction in the West Bank would most likely drain out water resources into its own territory, and choke Palestinian economy operations in the West Bank.

These actions are going to get Israel into a quagmire. I still believe, though, that Israel can get out of this mess by negotiating with the Lebanese government, and dismantling all settlements in the West Bank if not allowing them to be incorporated with the future Palestinian state. But I'd like to think that what we are witnessing is, in my pessimistic outlook, a lull before the storm's full fury. The conflict might still go on, and the lives of many innocent Palestinians, Lebanese, Arabs and Israelis are at risk.

You never know these days.

Saracen

Ahmedinajad is NOT Hitler

2006-08-28T13:18:00.000-07:00

"This is 1935, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is as close to Adolf Hitler as we've seen," said Newt Gingrich to a startled editor at Human Events.

This Ahmadinejad=Hitler meme has been repeated endlessly among mass media conservatives in the United States. They usually defend this meme by saying that Ahmadinejad threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Hardly anyone in the US media is challenging this idea. Nobody is looking at Ahmadinejad's original statement nor are they examining it in context. It seems to me like many people want this statement, taken out of context, to define President Ahmadinejad.

Why won't these people report on this statement by Ahmadinejad?

"Iran is not a threat to any country, and is not in any way a people of intimidation and aggression."

Or this statement?

"Weapons research is in no way part of Iran's program. Even with regard to the Zionist regime, our path to a solution is elections."

(source)

Why not report this statement by Khamenei:

Their other issue is [their assertion] that Iran seeks [a] nuclear bomb. It is an irrelevant and wrong statement, it is a sheer lie. We do not need a nuclear bomb. We do not have any objectives or aspirations for which we will need to use a nuclear bomb. We consider using nuclear weapons against Islamic rules. We have announced this openly. We think imposing the costs of building and maintaining nuclear weapons on our nation is unnecessary.

(source)

It seems to me that these quotes are not used because mass media conseratives like the Ahmadinejad=Hitler meme. This meme reinforces their worldview and reinforces their desire for war against Iran.

Here is another development in the continuing efforts by some to cause a war between the US and Iran. It seems that a recent report assessing the threat from Iran was written by Fred Fleitz, who seems to be a partisan hack (source). Make no mistake, there is a huge effort by some US conservatives to bring war against the Iranian people.

Although the Ahmadinejad=Hitler meme is the primary focus of this post, I'd like to share a few other thoughts about the situation with Iran.

Number 1, I don't think war against Iran can be justified unless it was to attack another nation. The possibility that Iran could have a nuclear weapon one day is real but I don't think that means the end of the world. I don't even think the world should impose sanctions on Iran, sanctions would hurt the Iranian people and stunt the progress of the country.

Number 2, Iran should let inspectors verfiy their enrichment capabilities. If they do this, I believe that a lot of the world's concerns will be aleviated.

Number 3, any moral person in the US should do their best to steer the US away from attacking Iran.

It is my sincerest hope that the US works with Iran. I hope that my children will not be raised in a world where the US and Iran are enemies. This can only be accomplished by cooperation with Iran, war will only extend the unfortunate enmity between my country and Iran.

World War III or Bust: Implications of a US Attack on Iran

2006-08-22T14:34:00.000-07:00

by Heather Wokusch
-February 19, 2006

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous... Having said that, all options are on the table."
-George W. Bush, February 2005

Witnessing the Bush administration’s drive for an attack on Iran is like being a passenger in a car with a raving drunk at the wheel. Reports of impending doom surfaced a year ago, but now it’s official: under orders from Vice President Cheney’s office, the Pentagon has developed “last resort” aerial-assault plans using long-distance B2 bombers and submarine-launched ballistic missiles with both conventional and nuclear weapons.

How ironic that the Pentagon proposes using nuclear weapons on the pretext of protecting the world from nuclear weapons. Ironic also that Iran has complied with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, allowing inspectors to “go anywhere and see anything,” yet those pushing for an attack, the USA and Israel, have not.

The nuclear threat from Iran is hardly urgent. As the Washington Post reported in August 2005, the latest consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies is that “Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years.” The Institute for Science and International Security estimated that while Iran could have a bomb by 2009 at the earliest, the US intelligence community assumed technical difficulties would cause “significantly delay.” The director of Middle East Studies at Brown University and a specialist in Middle Eastern energy economics both called the State Department’s claims of a proliferation threat from Iran’s Bushehr reactor “demonstrably false,” concluding that “the physical evidence for a nuclear weapons program in Iran simply does not exist.”

So there’s no urgency - just a bad case of déjà vu all over again. The Bush administration is recycling its hype over Hussein’s supposed WMD threat into rhetoric about Iran, but look where the charade got us last time: tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, a country teetering on civil war and increased global terrorism.

Yet the stakes in Iran are arguably much higher.

Consider that many in the US and Iran seek religious salvation through a Middle Eastern blowout. “End times” Christian fundamentalists believe a cataclysmic Armageddon will enable the Messiah to reappear and transport them to heaven, leaving behind Muslims and other non-believers to face plagues and violent death. Iran’s new Shia Islam president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, subscribes to a competing version of the messianic comeback, whereby the skies turn to flames and blood flows in a final showdown of good and evil. The Hidden Imam returns, bringing world peace by establishing Islam as the global religion.

Both the US and Iran have presidents who arguably see themselves as divinely chosen and who covet their own country’s apocalypse-seeking fundamentalist voters. And into this tinderbox Bush proposes bringing nuclear weapons.

As expected, the usual suspects press for a US attack on Iran. Neo-cons who brought us the “cakewalk” of Iraq want to bomb the country. There’s also Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, busy coordinating the action plan against Iran, who just released the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review calling for US forces to “operate around the globe” in an infinite “long war.” One can assume Rumsfeld wants to bomb a lot of countries.

And there’s Israel, keen that no other country in the region gains access to nuclear weapons. In late 2002, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Iran should be targeted “the day after” Iraq was subdued, and Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party, recently warned that if he wins the presidential race in March 2006, Israel will “do what we did in the past against Saddam’s reactor,” an obvious reference to the 1981 bombing of the Osirak nuclear facility in Iraq. It doesn’t help that Iran’s Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust a myth and said that Israel should be "wiped off the map."

In the eyes of the Bush administration, however, Iran’s worst transgression has less to do with nuclear ambitions or anti-Semitism than with the petro-euro oil bourse Tehran is slated to open in March 2006. Iran’s plan to allow oil trading in euros threatens to break the dollar’s monopoly as the global reserve currency, and since the greenback is severely overvalued due to huge trade deficits, the move could be devastating for the US economy.

So we remain pedal to the metal with Bush for an attack on Iran.

But what if the US does go ahead and launch an assault in the coming months? The Pentagon has already identified 450 strategic targets, some of which are underground and would require the use of nuclear weapons to destroy. What happens then?

You can bet that Iran would retaliate. Tehran promised a “crushing response” to any US or Israeli attack, and while the country – ironically - doesn’t possess nuclear weapons to scare off attackers, it does have other options. Iran boasts ground forces estimated at 800,000 personnel, as well as long-range missiles that could hit Israel and possibly even Europe. In addition, much of the world’s oil supply is transported through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow stretch of ocean which Iran borders to the north. In 1997, Iran’s deputy foreign minister warned that the country might close off that shipping route if ever threatened, and it wouldn’t be difficult. Just a few missiles or gunboats could bring down vessels and block the Strait, thereby threatening the global oil supply and shooting energy prices into the stratosphere.

An attack on Iran would also inflame tensions in the Middle East, especially provoking the Shiite Muslim populations. Considering that Shiites largely run the governments of Iran and Iraq and are a potent force in Saudi Arabia, that doesn’t bode well for calm in the region. It would incite the Lebanese Hezbollah, an ally of Iran’s, potentially sparking increased global terrorism. A Shiite rebellion in Iraq would further endanger US troops and push the country deeper into civil war.

Attacking Iran could also tip the scales towards a new geopolitical balance, one in which the US finds itself shut out by Russia, China, Iran, Muslim countries and the many others Bush has managed to offend during his period in office. Just last month, Russia snubbed Washington by announcing it would go ahead and honor a $700 million contract to arm Iran with surface-to-air missiles, slated to guard Iran’s nuclear facilities. And after being burned when the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority invalidated Hussein-era oil deals, China has snapped up strategic energy contracts across the world, including in Latin America, Canada and Iran. It can be assumed that China will not sit idly by and watch Tehran fall to the Americans.

Russia and China have developed strong ties recently, both with each other and with Iran. Each possesses nuclear weapons, and arguably more threatening to the US, each holds large reserves of US dollars which can be dumped in favor of euros. Bush crosses them at his nation’s peril.

Yet another danger is that an attack on Iran could set off a global arms race - if the US flaunts the non-proliferation treaty and goes nuclear, there would be little incentive for other countries to abide by global disarmament agreements either. Besides, the Bush administration’s message to its enemies has been very clear: if you possess WMD you’re safe, and if you don’t, you’re fair game. Iraq had no nuclear weapons and was invaded, Iran doesn’t as well and risks attack, yet that other “Axis of Evil” country, North Korea, reportedly does have nuclear weapons and is left alone. It’s also hard to justify striking Iran over its allegedly developing a secret nuclear weapons program, when India and Pakistan (and presumably Israel) did the same thing and remain on good terms with Washington.

The most horrific impact of a US assault on Iran, of course, would be the potentially catastrophic number of casualties. The Oxford Research Group predicted that up to 10,000 people would die if the US bombed Iran’s nuclear sites with conventional weapons, and that an attack on the Bushehr nuclear reactor could send a radioactive cloud over the Gulf. If the US uses nuclear weapons, such as earth-penetrating “bunker buster” bombs, radioactive fallout would become even more disastrous.

Given what’s at stake, few allies, apart from Israel, can be expected to support a US attack on Iran. While Jacques Chirac has blustered about using his nukes defensively, it’s doubtful that France would join an unprovoked assault, and even loyal allies, such as the UK, prefer going through the UN Security Council.

Which means the wildcard is Turkey. The nation shares a border with Iran, and according to Noam Chomsky, is heavily supported by the domestic Israeli lobby in Washington, permitting 12% of the Israeli air and tank force to be stationed in its territory. Turkey’s crucial role in an attack on Iran explains why there’s been a spurt of high-level US visitors to Ankara lately, including Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, FBI Director Robert Mueller and CIA Director Porter Goss. In fact, the German newspaper Der Spiegel reported in December 2005 that Goss had told the Turkish government it would be “informed of any possible air strikes against Iran a few hours before they happened” and that Turkey had been given a "green light" to attack camps of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iran “on the day in question.”

It’s intriguing that both Valerie Plame (the CIA agent whose identity was leaked to the media after her husband criticized the Bush administration’s pre-invasion intelligence on Iraq) and Sibel Edmonds (the former FBI translator who turned whistleblower) have been linked to exposing intelligence breaches relating to Turkey, including potential nuclear trafficking. And now both women are effectively silenced.

The US public sees the issue of Iran as backburner, and has little eagerness for an attack on Iran at this time. A USA Today/CNN Gallup Poll from early February 2006 found that a full 86% of respondents favored either taking no action or using economic/diplomatic efforts towards Iran for now. Significantly, 69% said they were concerned “that the U.S. will be too quick to use military force in an attempt to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.”

And that begs the question: how can the US public be convinced to enter a potentially ugly and protracted war in Iran?

A domestic terrorist attack would do the trick. Just consider how long Congress went back and forth over reauthorizing Bush’s Patriot Act, but how quickly opposing senators capitulated following last week’s nerve-agent scare in a Senate building. The scare turned out to be a false alarm, but the Patriot Act got the support it needed.

Now consider the fact that former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi has said the Pentagon’s plans to attack Iran were drawn up “to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States.” Writing in The American Conservative in August 2005, Giraldi added, “As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States.”

Chew on that one a minute. The Pentagon’s plan should be used in response to a terrorist attack on the US, yet is not contingent upon Iran actually having been responsible. How outlandish is this scenario: another 9/11 hits the US, the administration says it has secret information implicating Iran, the US population demands retribution and bombs start dropping on Tehran.

That’s the worst-case scenario, but even the best case doesn’t look good. Let’s say the Bush administration chooses the UN Security Council over military power in dealing with Iran. That still leaves the proposed oil bourse, along with the economic fallout that will occur if OPEC countries snub the greenback in favor of petro-euros. At the very least, the dollar will drop and inflation could soar, so you’d think the administration would be busy tightening the nation’s collective belt. But no. The US trade deficit reached a record high of $725.8 billion in 2005, and Bush & Co.’s FY 2007 budget proposes increasing deficits by $192 billion over the next five years. The nation is hemorrhaging roughly $7 billion a month on military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and is expected to hit its debt ceiling of $8.184 trillion next month.

So the white-knuckle ride to war continues, with the administration’s goals in Iran very clear. Recklessly naïve and impetuous perhaps, but clear: stop the petro-euro oil bourse, take over Khuzestan Province (which borders Iraq and has 90% of Iran’s oil) and secure the Straits of Hormuz in the process. As US politician Newt Gingrich recently put it, Iranians cannot be trusted with nuclear technology, and they also "cannot be trusted with their oil."

But the Bush administration cannot be trusted with foreign policy. Its military adventurism has already proven disastrous across the globe. It’s incumbent upon each of us to do whatever we can to stop this race towards war.

"Israeli-American Puppets in Lebanon" and Other Silly Arabian Nights

2006-08-22T12:18:00.000-07:00

It shouldn't be a surprise. In one of their comical "daring raids", Israeli commandoes violated the ceasefire by attacking "unidentified targets" in Lebanon's south with warplanes and helicopters. Hizbullah troops have claimed that this raid was "foiled". However, unlike their previous below-the-belt attacks, Israel actually admitted to carrying out this one, which was in violation of the UN ceasefire. However, just take a look at what the I"D"F said about the raid:

"Special forces carried out an operation to disrupt terror actions against Israel with an emphasis on the transfer of munitions from Syria and Iran to Hezbollah. The operation achieved all its aims and Israel will continue to prevent and thwart such shipments to Hezbollah until they are stopped."

Notice the wording. First, Israel uses the "terror" card/buzzword, then refers to the polarization technique: it shifts our focus to believing that Israel's "aims" are for the benefit of all, even though such a thing would benefit Israel only. I'd like to call a spade a spade: Israel, regardless of so-called "justifications" or "explanations", has nonetheless violated the ceasefire, and should pay reparations for such a thing. While the pretext used was to stop arms flow, remember that Israel is already supplied by the United States, the leading manufacturer of military hardware and munitions. Just so you know, Israel violated that ceasefire again, so this is what you can expect from Israel.

Let's now turn to the Lebanese government, a government that has rarely achieved stability over the past few years, ever since the death of former PM Rafik Hariri. The Lebanese government, like a handful of Arab governments, is made up of many parties, among them Walid Jumblatt's Democratic Front, Nabih Berri's Amal Group, Samir Gaagaa's Lebanese Forces (Kataeb, which has a reputation for being rightwing and pro-Israeli), Hassan Nasrallah's Hizbullah, and many others. The prime minister in charge now is Fouad Siniora, who seriously is, in my opinion, a seniora. While I appreciate the threat they gave Israel concerning the cessation of all troop deployment, I am still skeptical of their overall stance on this issue.

Why is that? I mean, they threatened to halt troop deployment when Israel violated the ceasefire. But there's more to this fairy tale than meets the eye. I was watching CNN the other day, where Elias Murr, the Lebanese Defense Minister, made it clear that if anyone were to attack Israel via rocket fire, they would be considered as "criminals". This came after he talked about how the Army would defend Lebanon. Substitute "Lebanon" with "Israel", and you realize that surely he would have been more up front. On the other hand, the Daily Star of Lebanon reported a different story. Nada Bakri wrote,

The Lebanese government vowed Sunday to respond "harshly" to any internal attempts to breach the week-old UN-brokered cease-fire with Israel, in an implicit warning to Hizbullah and other armed groups in the country. "Any violation, any rocket that would give Israel justification will be treated harshly. It will be considered as direct collaboration with the Israeli enemy," Defense Minister Elias Murr said during a news conference at his ministry.

"The Lebanese Army will be very tough in dealing with such an issue," the minister said, adding that those responsible "will be tried and referred to a military tribunal."

Call me a cynic, but I am usually doubtful of politicians in general. They tend to control the message that they deliver with wording like this, referring that they would attack their own people for the sake of undermining an Israeli aggression, referring to an aggression against Israel as a collaboration for Israel. But let's take a look at his senior, Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. That guy is just incompetent. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Siniora is a former finance minister and chairman of the banking holding company Group Méditerranée.

His former occupation alone is an indication of his incompetence as a prime minister. However, there's more to this. Siniora hasn't been doing much but talking, even crying, in front of press cameras. Moreover, other parliament members have been undermining any action that would be akin to an action from an independent Lebanese government standing against a full-fledged Israeli invasion. According to the same article in the SF Chronicle, parliament members like Saad Hariri and even Nabih Berri are working behind the scenes in order to bring an end to this onslaught, through what the article refers to as "foreign patrons". The mention of a Saudi foreign patron means that this involves American politicians as well, and this could lead to a deal which would be more acceptable to the politically and militarily aggressive United States and Israel. Even worse, there is a huge chance that the negotiations will swerve towards the way of the U.S. and Israel, with a disarmament condition being imposed on Hizbullah. A possible disarmament would prove to be the activator of a chain reaction that would lead to the Lebanese government being painted in the crosshairs of anti-imperialists. Allbriton writes that

If Hezbollah is defeated, however, any deal -- which almost certainly would include the disarmament of Hezbollah as called for in United Nations' Security Council Resolution 1559 -- will be seen as being imposed by outsiders and would threaten Saniora's government by allowing Hezbollah to paint it as a puppet in the service of Lebanon's enemies. The threat of sectarian violence would loom dangerously.

While Elias Murr is confident that such a breach of ceasefire from the Lebanese side would not come from Hizbullah, it still doesn't convince me that Murr is serving the Lebanese people more than he is serving Israel: the Lebanese Army, according to The Daily Star article provided above, is guarding the Lebanese-Syrian border, which itself is not defined, though one can see why it would do so (stopping arms flow).

The balance of power is proving to be unstable: Hizbullah has a trump card to play against the government if it steps out of line and does not fulfill the demands of the Lebanese people. What should be done in this case in order to return everything to normal is to first rebuild Lebanon's infrastructure from ground up. Negotiations should pass on with all parties involved excluding quartet powers, save for the U.N. and the E.U. The Lebanese prisoners should be exchanged for the Israeli soldiers still in Hizbullah's custody, and all land mines and other unexploded munitions still under Lebanese soil be sweeped from the battle zones of Beirut and southern Lebanon. Moreover, Israel should withdraw from Shebaa farms, as this would benefit Israel by discouraging Hizbullah attacks (Hizbullah maintains a militia under the pretext of Shebaa Farms' occupation by Israel) and benefit Lebanon by regaining the land that was stolen from them during the 1967 war (which didn't even involve Lebanon to begin with). The Lebanese Army should also keep an eye out for Israeli operatives and military personnel with the cruel intent of aggressing against Lebanon. Finally, democratic elections should come to pass that do not include any sort of fraud, etc., and, hopefully, not the rise to power of some Israeli-American puppet in Lebanon.

Saracen

Iraq's "Stability"

2006-08-19T12:59:00.000-07:00

The assurance card has been played too many times and for far too long. It's just that whenever a politician speaks of "order", chaos ensues, as if chaos itself is an allergic reaction on part of the public to any false claim about such "order". The thing is, if you take a look at the headlines in the past few days, you'll still find the same old, lame old chaos looming around. People everywhere are under threat, even newspaper sellers (among them who sell government propaganda outlets to the public). According to Hussein Ali of the Institute of War and Peace, newspaper sellers were occasionally threatened at gun point my militia men and told not to sell newspapers, as they are usually printed by Shi'ite/governmental officials. But that's not what really damns the story. What really does is the last few lines of the report. It explicitly states that the militants have more control than the government, which still dispenses its "death squads" that go around and kill Sunnites, whether innocent or militant.

If that's not the only thing that is bothering the inhabitants of Iraq, there's much to be said. For example, there's also the threat faced against aid workers in Iraq, who are pressed against a wall like most innocent civilians are. IRIN tells us that things aren't going as well as planned: aid, while not plentiful, is also not being delivered properly. Aid workers are being threated for delivering supplies to a group of people of same religion, ethnicity, color, etc. It seems, then, that aid workers are being attacked by those who want sectarian strife. Perhaps they are the same ones attacking newspaper sellers?

Kirkuk is not left alone like other small-time Iraqi cities and towns, but is in fact feeling quite a lot of the impulses of civil war and strife. A report, also by IRIN, tells us that 190,000 people have been displaced as a result of what the report calls "increased violence over [Kirkuk] land claims". This isn't new: violence in Iraq is on the rise, and terrorism has taken its effect. What terrorism? Terrorism on part of ALL parties involved, even the Coalition. While the militants reign in control, the government just sits around and gets to talk about "order" in order to maintain their "image" and acquire a false sense of security and control... all the while maintaining servitude to the "higher powers" in the White House.

That was just a small sample of the mess that Iraq has been in the past few weeks. The media diversion to Lebanon has done quite much to cover the horrors and atrocities taking place in Iraq, which has beyond doubt tumbled into the abyss of chaos. Thankfully, the situation in Lebanon, while still volatile, has calmed down considerably in the past few days, but Iraq is not seeing a similar silver lining amongst the clouds of death that loom over the entire country. But what I'm focusing here is on the farce of the "stability" issue, or, as I've called it before, the "order" trump card, used by many politicians, not just in Iraq alone. Israeli politicians have used time and time again to justify the military occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (or, more accurately, all of Palestine). I'd like to turn your attention to an article by Counterpunch veteran Patrick Cockburn. He commented quite much, especially on the recent leaders of Iraq who are giving Americans and other inhabitants of this miserable planet such false pretenses of order, ever since Nuri Al Maliki, Iraqi PM, visited Congress and spoke out against "Godless terrorists" or somewhat. Bush was happy that his new pet was obedient. Cockburn writes,

Civil war is raging across central Iraq. Baghdad, a city whose population is almost the same as London, is splitting into hostile and heavily armed districts. Minorities, be they Sunni or Shia, are being killed or forced to flee. People dare not even take their furniture in case this might alert their neighbors to their departure and lead to their deaths. Sunni no longer let the mostly Shia police enter their districts. "If this isn't civil war," a senior Iraqi official said this weekend, "I don't know what is."

It is at this moment that the new Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, went on his travels to his sponsors in the West, denying that Iraq is sliding into civil war. He spoke confidently about disarming militias. "When our so-called leaders go to Washington they always produce a rosy picture of what is happening in Iraq for the Americans, though they know it is a lie," sighed one veteran Iraqi politician.

What Cockburn documented was simply what one could expect out of any slimy politician for that matter. Disorder is disorder, no matter how much you try to spin it. I've seen some apologists claim that "it's just a war" or it's some sort of syndrome. Even worse, others have resorted to racist excuses, blaming it on the Arabs because they "just love to kill each other". In real life, nothing happens without a reason. The sectarianism and distrust of the government couldn't be more evident. While predominantly Shi'te officials are increasing their stranglehold on Baghdad's Sunnite districts, other Sunnite pockets in the city are resisting all governmental forces from interfering. Cockburn continues to comment on the Iraqi government and why it has to date not served its people. He writes,

Iraqi leaders are not what they seem. They live in the Green Zone, the heavily fortified enclave guarded by US troops, in the heart of Baghdad. Many never leave it except for extensive foreign travel. Eighteen months ago an Iraqi magazine claimed to have discovered that at one point the entire cabinet was out of the country at the same time. The government remains reliant on the US. One former minister told me: "There is a culture of dependency. Part of the time the Americans treat us as a colony, part of the time as an independent country." Mr al-Maliki only became Prime Minister because the US and Britain were determined to get rid of his predecessor, Ibrahim al-Jaafari. Mr al-Maliki is inexperienced, personally isolated without his own kitchen cabinet, guarded by American guards and heavily reliant on shadowy US advisers.

While this may seem like an opinion, I pretty much share the same outlook. I mean, take a look at the situation: while he speaks of order and "disarming militants", people are dying by the hour. The only thing he controls is the Green Zone and an Iraq that comes from the figment of his wildest imaginations. This literally means that he may be the leader of a government, but has no independence and no hold over any part of Iraq. Militias are roaming the streets, and the situation goes as far to encourage their growth and presence. And all the while, violence still rages on, while Maliki can smile and dictate out tomorrow's "rosy" headlines. Ah, well, what do you expect from an American puppet? If this isn't enough, wait till you hear what Cockburn has to say about the security forces in Iraq:

For instance, its own intelligence organization should be essential to a government fighting for its life against a violent insurgency. At first sight, Iraq might appear to have one under Major-General Mohammed al-Shahwani, but it has no budget because it is funded directly by the CIA, to the tune of $200-300m (£110-160m) a year and, not surprisingly, it is to the CIA that it first reports. Not surprisingly, Iraqis will need a lot of convincing that Mr al-Maliki is not one more American pawn. In theory he should be in charge of a substantial army force. The number of trained Iraqi soldiers and police has grown from 169,000 in June 2005 to 264,000 this June. But the extra 105,000 armed men have not only made no difference to security in Iraq but that security has markedly deteriorated over the past year. The reason is that the armed forces put their allegiance to their own communities - Kurd, Sunni or Shia - well before their loyalty to the state. Shia do not believe they will be defended from a pogrom by a Sunni units and the Sunni feel the same way about Shia units.

This is why the militias are growing in strength. Everybody wants an armed militia from their own community to defend their neighborhoods. In any case the largest political parties making up the present Iraqi government - the Kurds and the two biggest Shia religious parties - all have their private armies which they are not going to see dissolved. Not only is Mr al-Maliki's suggestion that the militiamen might be stood down untrue but the trend is entirely the other way. The army and police are themselves becoming sectarian and ethnic militias. This makes absurd George Bush's and Tony Blair's claim that at some stage the American-trained Iraqi security forces will be strong enough to stand alone.

The thing is, there is so much distrust in Iraq that none of the people there are ever going to dissolve their real allegiances to their sects and groups, ever since Saddam's government was toppled. While I hate Saddam with all my heart, at least he treated Iraqis like Iraqis, and not like Kurds, Sunnites, Shiites, etc. What's being encouraged is a sort of tribal warfare environment: every group has militias defending it, and pockets of resistance are being met with ambivalent attitudes. While Shi'ites remain loyal to their militiamen, they are also met with the side the government represents. You can say that Iraq is now in a state of anarchy. Unity is non-existent, and each group/militia has control of a certain district or neighborhood, which is quite a small unit in such a large city.

Is this going to get worse? I mean, Bush already rejected pullout calls, and thus implicitly assures Iraqis that American colonial control is not going away that fast. With incidents like this stampede on the rise, things aren't looking up in Iraq. Is it beyond hopeless? I don't know. Iraqis all over should denounce this growing civil strife and distrust... this fitna... and work together to topple the government and instate a more democratic rule that represents all Iraqis as Iraqis, not as Sunnites or Kurds or Shi'ites or whatever else there may be in this war-torn country. I pray for the betterness of Iraq, not for it to get plunged into some conflict that will have the Coalition take advantage of Iraq and her resources. The antiwar committee, while gaining growing support, is also not doing much. There must not only be protests and petitions, but public speech battles and railings and sit-ins against those very neocons that are in power. They know they are wrong, and their time is coming. The clock is ticking for those criminals, crooks, and liars, because in the end, justice will be served.

Saracen

More on 'Islamofascism.'

2006-08-19T09:37:00.000-07:00

It appears as though someone beat me to the punch, but here is a bit by me about ignorance and hatred toward Islamic people.

It seems that a lot of people assume that Islam is the cause of terrorism when if fact, that is not true at all. The truth is that it is merely a tool used by extremist leaders to motivate young zealots to commit acts of murder. Islam is the religion of the people who happen to be sitting on the resources we covet, it is not the motivating force behind terrorism.

If the Middle East had been largely Christian, our occupation and continuing support of dictatorships would have simply created Christian terrorists - but I doubt our Western culture would tag each one of them as a Christian in every single news story, I doubt the term 'Christofascists' would have ever been coined. No one ever mentions the Tamil Tigers because they are - inconveniently - not Muslim. However, they invented the suicide vest and up until we created the giant terrorist training ground known as Iraq, the vast majority of suicide bombings in the world had been committed by them - not the so-called "Islamofascists."

Another fact that everyone seems to ignore is that statistically, 95% of ALL terrorist suicide bombings are meant to compel one country to move its forces off of a patch of land claimed by the 'terrorist' group. Much the same as you or I would sabotage any occupying force in our own neighborhoods. Have you watched Red Dawn. Those guys - those heroes - by our definition, are terrorists. Did you cheer for the terrorist the first time you watched that movie as a kid? Or did you root for the ones in uniforms because they had state support?

Everyone is so anxious to assign labels to them because we are desperate to find a way to differentiate ourselves from those 'evil-doers.' We can't possibly understand the culture of of the Middle East or the repression that it has endured since the dawn of the oil age. No one ever seems to mention (or even think about) the stagnation of portions of Middle Eastern culture that has been enabled by massively powerful (due to obscene amounts of wealth) and repressive regimes that have been supported by the world's oil addiction. The gap between the upper an lower class is almost incomprehensible and even larger than our own.

Large corporations have been, for many decades, pushing the buttons by awarding wealth to key individuals who hold power that we've given them by our vote. Alternative fuels have been available since the late 1800's, but the market has been largely suppressed by the unimaginable amount of power wielded by these artificial entities. What strikes me as funny is that most people can't imagine that, despite what every single history book tells us men in power will take desperate measures to preserve/proliferate that power. Uh-uh, not in America, we're a Christian nation founded on fundamental(ist) moral values.

Who created this situation? We did by being complacent and not thinking about the impact that one region's exploitation of another's resources may have. We did by giving power to corrupt stooges that vote only in the interest of big money (big power) and then believing they are looking out for us when they have emergency sessions to ban flag burning and gay marriage. We did by being fat and lazy and not demanding alternative fuels - which would make oil just another commodity. We did by electing rulers that support a doctrine of military intervention that protects our 'interests' (translation, large corporations' interests) and creates an entire region of populated with many who are forced to live in poverty and repression and are pissed off because they are hungry and see foreign troops on land they claim as theirs.

You and I can never, ever understand what it is not to have any hope of being out from under the oppressive heel of a totalitarian regime that lives in castles literally made of gold - bought by profits from oil - while our children starve and die of diseases because we can't scrape together a few coins to sustain our lives in even reasonable comfort. We will try, but we will fail, because we've never been there and probably don't know anyone who has.

So we make up terms for these poor people like 'Islamofascist' so that we know that their god has a different name and we can feel good about killing them and seizing their dirt and - more importantly - what lies beneath it.

Frankly such ignorance makes me sick.

"islamofascism"

2006-08-10T22:46:00.000-07:00

Earlier this week, responding to the news of the arrests in London, President Bush used the term 'Islamic fascism'. The word itself isn't new, I've heard it or "islamofascists" in conservative circles for the past few years. The term is wildly inaccurate except that it reflects the beliefs and sentiments that support the idea of a "Global War on Terror." I want to examine those beliefs and sentiments, but first, a note on Bush's use of the term.

Here is an MSNBC article that draws attention to the decision (by the decider) to use the term "Islamic Fascists." This is a significant break from the focus on 'terror':

Instead, the war was now with “Islamic fascists” — a term that has rarely been used by the president before this week. Was it used in the heat of the moment, or was the president rolling out a new way of explaining U.S. policy — choosing new words to explain and solidify support?

Even though President Bush has rarely used the term, the set of beliefs the word refers to have always been present in Bush's discourse, specifically the GWOT (global war on terror) discourse. In this discourse, all of the varied phenomena of terrrorism are united together against the West. Roughly speaking, the West in this discourse refers to the socio-economic order of which the United States and the rest of the industrial world belong. The United States is the dominant member of this global order and this dominance is the result of the America's exceptional nature. And this global order is the victim of terorrism. Terrorism is cast as an existential threat to this global order and specifically, the United States.

Besides referring to the enemy in the GWOT, "islamofascists" is pejorative. This is very important because American pundits demand a verbal machoism when referring to one's enemies. Being 'soft on terror' often amounts to saying bad things about terrorists. It's a requirement for tough talk. It's specific demand for all references to the enemy to include a macho condemnation.

The machoism is also present in the willful act of demeaning the Islamic religion. To attach the word 'fascists' to the word Islam is very insulting to the Islamic religion. To me, and many people, that's reason enough not to use it. But for those who use this term such respect is weakness. They label it "political correctness" and dismiss any concern that it might offend somebody. This is a part of a larger trend in mass media conservativism that concerns itself with the menace of political correctness, a trend that has been quite successful btw.

The term 'islamofascism' associates al-Qaidism and other terrorisms with the Nazis and other totalitarian movements. This association works pretty well with the US narrative where fighting totalitarism is primary function of the United States. This narrative has been called "the myth of the American Century" (for more details, here is a post on the subject). The GWOT becomes just another noble war in a chain of noble endevours since WWII against the forces of evil. But each of those conflicts differed significantly. Painting them all with the same brush doesn't help us understand them. Here is an article where Bill Barnes points out some significant differences:

assimilating that congeries of phenomena to the totalitarianism of 1930s Central Europe, to Naziism in particular, and, even more particularly, to the SS of the period 1941-44. You all present fascisms as all of a piece, all equally extreme, all equally prone to treat all forms of liberalism as anathema. This is simply wrong.

A strategic note, it might be our inability to think cleary about terrorists that prevent us from more success. The use of a term "islamofascism" doesn't paint a clear picture of what we are dealing with.

The use of the term 'islamofascism' should be abandoned. We should speak of specific movements, al-Qaidaism, for example. With this term we respect Islam and give better focus to the actual terrorist networks. We should adopt specific terms for other types of terorrism. Consider the terrorism in Iraq. There are many different groups involved in these attacks. Wouldn't we be better off ditinguishing between these types? Couldn't this accuracy help us understand the situation better there? Another example is the absurd association of Hizbullah with al-Qaidaism. They are structurally different, have different goals, have different strategy, and do not operate together. Once we abandon the project of creating a global "fascist" enemy out of terrorists we might be able to see the problem clearer. We might be less afraid. And most importantly, we might be less willing to wage war.

Utopia, Wherefore Art Thou?

2006-08-09T02:33:00.000-07:00

Imagine a world where people are content, and governments serve the populace, not the other way around. Freedom is granted to all, and a sense of law and order are still felt. Governments trade freely, and poverty is minimized, while jobs are offered even when technology advances to the extent that it reduces the need for a larger human workforce. Food, energy and other resources are available in ways that do not damage the environment, and their costs don't come as expensive as they do these days. A belief in humanity is common and encouraged, and people are free to practice whatever religion they choose and say whatever they want in all forms of media.

Now, imagine if all that was possible in this world.

Utopia is not attainable. Ever. It's a sad fact of life, but people will tend to be leaning towards negative values for their own "positive" ends. Perfection is something no one, no nation, no people will ever reach: it's a fantasy that escapes all one's wildest dreams. Whatever is easier for one to obtain personally in one's character is usually an exhibition of some of man's worst qualities and natures. Everything that has been set before him has been misused and abused to the extent that it begins to harm those around him, whether human or animal. Even his fellow man becomes an object of his distaste, just because that said man committed the crime of conflicting with his interests, ambitions and desires.

But there are a few people out there, willing to show the world that there need not be such cruelty and inhumanity. There are people, like myself and my fellow bloggers here on this board, that are willing to take the extra mile and show the world that through education, patience, reform, and progress, the world, if it can't get to utopia, will at least become a better and more survivable place for all who live on it. As they say, it takes one person to make a difference, but given the hapless state the world is in, it would take a whole lot more than just one person to make up for what the people of this world, especially those in power, have plunged this world into. Surely, a united effort might win it...

Alright, alright. I sounded a bit too optimistic there. Even if such a plan is implemented, there are many people out there who will resist this change, and such a change could be disastrous. Why is that? Francois de la Rouhefoucauld, a classical French author (and what a name!), once said that the only thing constant in this universe is change. This means that even if a pseudo-utopian state is finally obtained, some of the people under this state category will want to see some sort of change eventually. This has also been explained by a saint, Sir Thomas More. More (I don't mean the comparative form of much, but Thomas More) pointed out several qualities that make up a dweller of utopia, among them rationale, pacifism, godliness in act (meaning that no sins or crimes are committed), etc. Such a utopian nation would exhibit the qualities that I described above. But even in such a nation would the mind be tricked into committing an act that would defile the utopian nature of the environment. In short, even rational people can act irrationally, pacifist people can act war-like, godly people can commit sins, and so forth. A sense of order will always require some sort of chaos to fuel it in order to incite an act that would restore the sense of order in the first place. Even one step out of the line is enough to destroy the perfection of such a "utopian" society.

Political utopia is also hard to achieve, because it will require the simultaneous attainment of social utopia and economic/fiscal utopia. The attainment of social utopia is difficult. Regarding issues of abortion, crime and gun control, people will always have conflicting views. For example, in the U.S.A., there are many states that have gun control laws, and states that do not. In either one, crime is rife. Therefore, a centrist solution would probably mean nothing. Abortion is a hot topic for debate. As a liberal-leaning centrist, I don't mind others having an abortion, though I tend to hold personal beliefs that contradict with my social philosophy; however, there are others who just can't shut up, and demand an end to abortion, even if the mother's life is in danger. The topic of social programs is intertwined with the fiscal/economic aspect of the topic. Privatization, while supported by many, is despised by others who claim that subsidization is a better alternative to this "capitalist evil". Having attained a way to make suitable the situation for such a utopian attainment, one has to consider politics. In utopia, it is argued that limited government is best as it increases personal freedom and promotes liberal society, which itself is pseudo-utopian. However, others argue that a bigger government is needed in order to ensure the security and safety of the populace, but I think you all know how these turn out to be, eh?

Regardless, there will always be a portion of the populace that will confront this change, or urge for a different mode of change than the one proposed for a certain attainment of utopia. And then there are those who mix political matters with personal affairs, which make it all the more messed up. To attain a mentality that comprises of beliefs in humanity, progression, and acceptance/tolerance is difficult for many people, and there will always be a fair share of racists and other bigots in society who will do everything in their power to make another group of people feel unaccepted and incite strife between nations that already co-exist, or are on the path of doing so. Stability is not something constant; when governmental policies cease to be functional, they must be changed in order to suit the ever-changing demands of the spurring populace that the government represents, or supposedly represents in the case of authoritarian regimes. It is possible, however, that with reform, old policies will be replaced with new ones that may not only restore the economic and social stability of a certain populace, but also bring it closer towards utopia. What I'm getting at is that through keeping up with the change if not staying ahead of it in the first place, one may keep the stability of one's nation, and make possible a more stable society that succeeds in all aspects, socially and fiscally.

Utopia may be the light at the end of the tunnel that we might never reach, but at least we can keep that light in our sights and not lag behind to the extent that it becomes nothing more than a mere spot on the horizon. I believe that it's becoming like that today, with all the war, misery, suffering and death that humanity has faced. Humanity is also going down the same path, with governmental corruption at an all-time high, and politicians looking forward to serving their own interests instead of their people. My friends, we are behind, but if we can find to keep up if not catch up, then we will succeed. It won't be easy in the long run, but I'm sure that if we settle down and solve our problems as mature as man can be, we can make it.

Saracen

Venezuela in the Spotlight

2006-08-04T14:29:00.000-07:00

My apologies for not posting recently. It's just that whenever you're occupied with an event testimony to man's inhumanity to his fellow man that you're gripped covering it over and over again. Anyways, back to business...

I always thought of South America as a haven for communists, progressives and other "revolutionaries", among from being a naturally beautiful continent where many Arabs, Lebanese and Palestinian especially, have emigrated over the past century. Apart from Chile and Argentina, a country that has suddenly come into the spotlight in the past decade is Venezuela. Why Venezuela? According to the CIA World Factbook, Venezuela appeals to the common man as a strategic location. It is full of natural resources, among them petrol, oil, natural gas, diamonds and bauxite. The country itself is a major hub for both sea and air trade routes, via the Carribean and the major River Orinoco.

But that's how, sadly, the rightwing see Venezuela: an advantage and a beacon from where they can spread their Manifest Destiny and thus hegemonic control over other nations, including Venezuela itself, that resist the aims of neocon imperialism. What really pissed off the neocons was the re-election of the much-beloved Hugo Chavez, head of the Fifth Republic Movement in Venezuela. He strikes me as a leftist, though he might be a rightwinger in terms of his country's political system. Chavez has a noted history of turning down American offers and resisting accusations thrown at him by the "elite" neocon gang at the Capitol and the White House. Rumsfeld really cracked my ribs when he said that Chavez was "worse than Hitler", for example, to which Chavez replied comically that Hitler was a "baby next to Bush". As a non-partisan, I tend to be skeptical, even cynical of politicians, even those who are facing a common enemy or have views very close to mine. While I admire Chavez for standing up against American interventionism and terrorism, he certainly wasn't the first. Truly, the Americans are scheming against him?

It wasn't long before I saw this article on Voltaire-NET that I started thinking that most certainly are Washington's cronies setting their eyes on Venezuela, not only for ousting Chavez and installing an American puppet, but for the noted reasons above. Salim Lamrani cites a report from the Pentagon which claims that people like Chavez, who are supposedly authoritarian (Chavez has socialist values), are the "source of political and economic stability". Never mind that Chavez has support of at least 71% of the local population, so technically such calls against Chavez are unfounded. Moreover, Venezuela has allies in the region, most notably Evo Morales of Bolivia, Venezuela's neighbor, and pretty much most third world nations (which Bush Sr. called the "little guys" or something of that sort). Chavez at the moment seems untouchable.

However, Salim Lamrani of Voltaire-NET, in the same source provided above, paints another picture. He reminds us of the regional U.S. ally in the region: Chile, ruled by the notorious capitalist dictator, Augusto Pinochet. This old man, Pinochet, is an vowed enemy of socialism and socialists alike (while I am both anti-Communist and anti-Fascist, I'd rather be a socialist than a fascist). After the overthrow of Salvatore Allende, Pinochet rounded up many opponents to his regime (whom he referred to as "terrorists"), and sent them to stadiums and other facilities that have been converted to concentration camps and torture chambers. There, people were beaten up, and tortured to death, sometimes electrocuted on sensitive parts that need not be mentioned. Anyways, getting back to the issue at hand, we can see that a country like Venezuela, while in a good position amongst the Third World, is standing in a dangerous position. Chile, according to Lamrani, is being supplied with weapons. This was given to Chile as an indication, and somewhat a threat to its leadership if it were to establish ties with the Venezuelan government. Under the new leadership of Michele Bachelet, Chile is now at a crossroads and has to choose between Caracas (Venezuela, and thus Chavez) and Washington (Zionist lobby, neocon capital, whatever you want to call it... Bush).

The ISN published a report on this developing issue. Sam Logan of ISN Security Watch claimed that the issue arose after Chile's decision to nominate Venezuela to the UNSC (the United Nations Security Council). Why this is a threat confuses me: there are many nations that vote for or against certain resolutions, but the U.S., despite being a lone star ranger on the Security Council table, still has the much hated veto card. I think it was because Chavez claimed that the U.S. is the controller of the U.N., which it is. Moreover, Bachelet and her socialist party are supportive of Venezuela's candidacy and government, even though Chile has not been quite nice in the past. Furthermore, Chile is strategic to both Venezuela and Washington: despite the corrupt dictatorship of Pinochet, Chile has become a successful beacon of capitalist economy in South America... somewhat an "example" to follow. Whatever the case, it will prove to be interesting, and might end with a possible military takeover of Venezuela on part of Washington, and possibly the rise of another Pinochet-like dictator. Oh, well... I guess that whatever resists American "democracy" and "freedom" should be rooted out?

I suppose Israel would be wanting him removed as well. Just today, Chavez announced that he has withdrew the Venezuelan ambassador to Israel from Tel Aviv. This came as a complete surprise to me: none of the Arab governments have done the same for their ambassadors, especially when it's done to send a message to Israel's government. Although I might not entirely agree with him that Israel is committing "fascism", Israel certainly doesn't control its temper when trying to achieve its own ends, and to it, the ends justifies the means... so, yeah, I can see why he called Israel's actions as akin to fascism. But he also said something else that caught my ears: "It's hard to explain to oneself how nobody does anything to stop this horror." Certainly, the U.N. and many world leaders have lost their conscience, or are seemingly so as the U.S. and Israel have shown that they have both lost it. Chavez, it seems, can prove to be a staunch leader of the Third World, though many people in Latin America outside Venezuela seem to think otherwise.

Whatever it is, I just hope for the best, either way. I am not supportive of Chavez as a politician: he leans towards authoritarian and socialist ideals, which do not conform to mine; I'm not supportive of any one politician in general anyways, even the Palestinian leadership. I have had enough of seeing politicians use their position for their own ends. I want to see statesmen, who can stand up for their people and show the world that they can serve their people selflessly. If Chavez can truly stand up to American imperialist demands, I applaud him, but for now, I reserve my judgement.

Sign this Petition!

2006-08-02T12:35:00.000-07:00

“As citizens of humanity, it is our duty to amend apathy towards the deaths of innocent civilians in the Middle East and to motivate action in this regard and towards a peaceful reformation of the crisis at hand.”

We the Undersigned:

-Demand justice for the atrocious war crimes that have been occurring throughout the Middle East against not only Arabs and Israelis; Christians, Muslims and Jews; but humanity.

-Demand that attention is called to rectify the euphemistic and at times sensationalistic rhetoric reported by the media. “Strategic Air Strikes” and “Fighting Terror” de-victimize civilian casualties.

-Demand an immediate and unconditional ceasefire between all parties involved.

-Demand that the lives of innocent Lebanese and Israeli civilians no longer be held hostage by the agendas of political organizations.

-Condemn all political agendas that directly and indirectly execute violence against civilians.

-Demand a humanitarian agenda be devised and implemented to once and for all put an end to the destruction of civilian lives, homes, cities and infrastructure in the Middle East.

-Demand that mental, financial and political support be endorsed by not only the involved parties, but a network of humanitarians, for rebuilding efforts.

-Demand that the United Nations, the United States of America, Canada, the European Union and the Arab League implement a humanitarian-centered dialogue and agenda that supports an immediate peaceful reformation of the current conflict as well as enforces a long term plan for peace.

-Demand that all governments and parties involved in the violence against civilians accept responsibility and be persecuted under Article 33 of the Geneva Convention: “Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.”

-Acknowledge that both Hezbollah and the Israeli Defense must be held accountable for the violence against civilians in both Lebanon and Israel, however, because of Israel’s disproportionate military power, we demand the state of Israel to use its utmost restraint and avoid bombing civilians as well as Lebanon’s infrastructure.

-Demand that you put politics, race, nationality, culture and religion aside in order to realize that the destruction the Middle Eastern region has suffered through is manifesting into a genocide of innocent people; human beings; souls.

Well, what are you waiting for? Sign this petition! There are many like this, but I'm giving you one right now.

(By the way, I didn't get a confirmation email regarding this, but I'm pretty sure that if you sign it, it will already go through).

Condoleezza Rice: Midwife from Hell

2006-07-29T08:41:00.000-07:00

By Matthew Rothschild
July 28, 2006

After being one of the most inept national security advisers in the nation’s history, Condoleezza Rice is now earning the same grade as secretary of state.

Her description of the conflagration in Lebanon as the “birthpangs of a new Middle East” was about as callous as it gets, matched only by Bush’s remark that the conflict represents “a moment of opportunity.”

The 400 Lebanese who have died, an overwhelming number of them civilian and many of them children, were not feeling any birthpangs. They were feeling deathpangs.

Nor were families of the Israeli victims (about 50 so far, and most of them soldiers) cheering the new day, either.

Rice’s cruel opposition to an immediate cease-fire has left the whole world outside of Israel (and Tony Blair’s kennel) aghast.

And U.N. Ambassador John Bolton’s sneering about a cease-fire not being “the alpha and omega” only reinforced the arrogance.

More than half a million people in Lebanon have been turned into refugees in just a matter of weeks.

Israelis are bunkered in bomb shelters.

And all Rice can do is issue hollow words of concern and then sabotage any immediate cease-fire?

The expediting of U.S. bombs to Israel at the same time sent an all too obvious message. Did they fly in carriage on the same plane that took Rice to the region? Is she bringing another load with her this time?

As Rice did in the lead up to the Iraq War, so she is doing now: She’s drinking her own propaganda.

The Iraq War was going to redraw the map of the Middle East.

Now the Lebanon War is going to do the trick?

The Iraqi people were going to welcome the Americans with open arms.

Now the Lebanese people are going to rise up and somehow defeat Hezbollah when Israel can’t even do the job?

Politically naïve, Rice also appears woefully jejune about human nature.

When people are being attacked by a foreign power, they rarely rally to that foreign power’s side.

And when a group in their midst fights back against the invaders, that group doesn’t lose support, it gains support.

The United States and Israel have succeeded only in making heroes of Hezbollah thugs.

Rice’s green light for Olmert’s spilling of red blood has managed only to further enrage the Arab and Muslim world and isolate the United States among its allies (except, of course, for Tony Blair, who is still wagging his tail and licking Bush’s face).

It is not in the interests of the United States, and it is not in Israel’s interests either, to show the international community utter disdain. And the war crimes of Israel, and Rice’s blessing of them, will long be remembered.

Where was Condoleezza Rice when Israel bombed the only power plant in Gaza, bringing about a humanitarian crisis?

Where was Condoleezza Rice, when Israel inflicted collective punishment on the sovereign people of Lebanon?

Where was Condoleezza Rice, when Israel was killing more than 100 Lebanese children?

Condoleezza Rice was in Israel’s corner.

For five and a half years, Rice did nothing about the most serious problem in the Middle East, and now she’s done worse than nothing.

Rice believes in is the diplomacy of the F-16.

And that style of diplomacy is crashing and burning.

Putting the Lid on Hasbara

2006-07-28T14:05:00.000-07:00

It's everywhere: Israeli propaganda has done an excellent job at concealing the truth behind Israel's motives in Lebanon. Whatever it is, many players of this propaganda machine that is defending every Israeli action, from the most unjust (and therefore indefensible) to the seemingly "just". However, despite the huge number of proof denouncing Hasbara and other similar propaganda outlets, I will focus on a small sample.

Yonit Farago, a TimesOnline journalist in Jerusalem, published a report on how Israeli propagandists have taken to the net in order to supposedly "balance" the views on the conflict. He wrote,

Israel’s Government has thrown its weight behind efforts by supporters to counter what it believes to be negative bias and a tide of pro-Arab propaganda. The Foreign Ministry has ordered trainee diplomats to track websites and chatrooms so that networks of US and European groups with hundreds of thousands of Jewish activists can place supportive messages.

In the past week nearly 5,000 members of the World Union of Jewish Students (WUJS) have downloaded special “megaphone” software that alerts them to anti-Israeli chatrooms or internet polls to enable them to post contrary viewpoints. A student team in Jerusalem combs the web in a host of different languages to flag the sites so that those who have signed up can influence an opinion survey or the course of a debate.

Well, personally, I like debate. However, there are times when actions can't be defended against, even by most moral standards. For example, when Saddam gassed the Kurds back in the late 80's onwards, no one stood to defend it. Likewise, what we are seeing is a massacre of innocent civilians and a destruction of civilian infrastructure. We are also seeing attacks on Israeli towns and cities, with casualties on the rise. So, technically, I'm not blind to the Israelis as I have shown enough consideration here.

Jonny Cline, of the international student group, said that Jewish students and youth groups with their understanding of the web environment were ideally placed to present another side to the debate.

“We’re saying to these people that if Israel is being bashed, don’t ignore it, change it,” Mr Cline said. “A poll like CNN’s takes just a few seconds to vote in, but if thousands take part the outcome will be changed. What’s vital is that the international face of the conflict is balanced.”

However, when Hamas gets voted in, many people rushed in to vote negatively. Therefore, Hasbara is aggressive as well as "defensive". What struck me, however, is how Mr. Cline claimed that Israel should be defended at all costs, even when the case involves, for example, an Israeli soldier shooting a 9-year-old girl. The Israelis can't stand and defend every action they take: not only is it sick and inhumane, but it is also a disassurance to more moderate Israelis and gives Israelis in general a bad name.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry must avoid direct involvement with the campaign but is in contact with international Jewish and evangelical Christian groups, distributing internet information packs.

Amir Gissin, the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s public relations director, said: “The internet’s become a leading tool for news, shaping the world view of millions. Our problem is the foreign media shows Lebanese suffering, but not Israeli. We’re bypassing that filter by distributing pictures showing how northern Israelis suffer from Katyusha rocket attacks.”

Balance... it's just that on Al Jazeera and other news stations, I have seen how Israelis suffered from Katyusha attacks as much as Lebanese and Palestinians suffered from the Israeli onslaught. Therefore, no Hasbara is needed; I need it as much as I want to add salt to my morning coffee.

In the words of Haitham Sabbah, Hasbara is "a well-oiled propaganda machine". It has many supporters and propagators eagerly and blindly ready to justify Israeli atrocities. Moreover, Hasbara actually has a handbook... Hasbara techniques, according to Wikipedia, involves a handful of propaganda and debating techniques. The first is Name calling: through the careful use of words, then name calling technique links a person or an idea to a negative symbol. This happened to me several times. I can't recall how many times I was branded as an anti-Semite just because I can't seemingly focus on other conflicts like Darfur (posted about it) and Somalia (already did) as well as other places like China (that requires a big one).

Another technique is Glittering generality: Simply put, glittering generality is name calling in reverse. Instead of trying to attach negative meanings to ideas or people, glittering generalities use positive phrases, which the audience are attached to, in order to lend positive image to things. Words such as "freedom", "civilization", etc. These generalities are subjective: remember that freedom is, as I explained before, inane, and that civilization depends on who is defining it. Furthermore, these generalities put a label on everyone involved in the particular group being glorified or denounced; many Israeli delinquents and even more Arab scholars are enough to drop this silly technique altogether.

A third technique is Transfer: Transfer involves taking some of the prestige and authority of one concept and applying it to another. For example, a speaker might decide to speak in front of a United Nations flag, in an attempt to gain legitimacy for himself or his idea. Of course, this is the silliest idea yet... at first glance. However, when you take a look at how Zionists worldwide are making a suddenly big fuss about the Darfur genocide, they appear as somewhat humane, and therefore their justifications for Israeli atrocities make no difference (I highlighted before that Darfur's genocide is similar to how the Zionists took over Palestine in 1948).

A fourth technique is Testimonial: Testimonial means enlisting the support of somebody admired or famous to endorse and ideal or campaign. This still does not add any value. If a famous person says that the Israeli massacre of the Lebanese these days is justified, that doesn't make it any more or any less justified in the eyes of the world community.

Another technique is the Plain folks technique: The plain folks technique attempts to convince the listener that the speaker is a 'regular guy', who is trust-worthy because the are like 'you or me'. Well, thanks for clearing up the bit that Zionists are also human, like you and me.

Fear and manipulation of it is always used in propaganda outlets, but fear is everywhere, and does not need to be incited in war time. Moreover, refusing to listen to propaganda will not create war nor conflict, unless Israel demands it to do so. However, usually the techniques involved include "fighting for peace", and you all know what Stephen King said about that.

Finally, there is the Bandwagon technique, which creates the impression that Israel is the right country to support. This could be achieved by nationalistic displays and marches in support of "Eretz Israel". I've seen marches on television in support of dictators like Qaddhafi and Saddam Hussein, so does that make them any more right? Of course not.

I leave you with a much mroe detailed critique of Hasbara. It is indeed a terrible propaganda outlet. Watch out for it. We want to just shift through all this senseless talk and get right down to the core facts of the matter, or the facts on the ground. Let's just hope that Israel's supporters abandon this bollocks, and instead call bullshit what it is. As long as we both view the humanity in all Zionists and anti-Zionists and peaceniks alike, and that the only way to stop this conflict is to take accountability for all actions and injustices done in the past, we can surely head for a brighter future.

Saracen

Shut Up!

2006-07-28T12:58:00.000-07:00

Wow... I never thought the Rome conference would end with a green light for Israel to continue in its destruction of Lebanon. Ah, well, any conference that has Kundaraleeza Rice is a joke anyways, and ends with Israel and America winning out against the demands of those who are seriously suffering from this onslaught. If anything, this conflict, as well as the recent developments in Iraq, have made me ever more cynical with respect to politicians in general. I find that most of them, who are all talk and no action, are just scum. That's probably the best word to describe them, if words have run out already to describe such people.

It's just that they keep talking. Now, with Maliki's recent speech to Congress, I have lost my faith in all politicians, even those that are on my side. Maliki has just joined the list of pets and puppets in this farcical "war on terror". Granted, I agree that terror "is no religious concept": Islam and other religions denounce it, but if he were to take a closer look, he will see that many nations other than the "Muslim radicals" commit terrorism to greater degrees, such as the American Coalition and Israel. It's all talk, talk, talk... yak yak yak yak yak... Even Lebanon's PM, Fu'ad Siniora, joined the club, along with cronies like Mahmoud Abbas, Pervez Musharraf, and Angela Merkel. All of them love to yak (chatter, talk, whatever).

Thing is, the conference was a farce, along with all other "meetings". Now, we're getting news that the soldier releases will be imminent... guess Israeli demands are more important? When over 420 Lebanese are dead, and Lebanon's infrastructure destroyed, along with factories and important buildings, why someone can just talk empty talk about filling in to Israel's demands befuddles even the most rational person. Has America lost its conscience? With the continuing damage, death and destruction being dealt on Lebanon and, more recently, Palestine, how can they allow such a thing? It's in effect, as usual, blaming the victim.

Whatever it is, all that talk is over. Now it's time, in the words of Mike Whitney, to put up or shut up, because the time for the big role players to talk is over.

Saracen

We are the Battlefield: The Contemporary Paradigm of War

2006-07-26T19:55:00.000-07:00

It's a sad fact that civilains suffer most contemporary wars. Solidiers and militants do not suffer or die as often civilians.

Terrororism is focused on civilians themselves. It strikes trains and planes rather than military bases. Aerial bombings often target forces in and around civilian populations, the unsurprising civilian casualities are called 'collateral damage'.

These two poles of warfare are the limits of warfare today. At the bottom is terrorism. Individual groups exploit any available technology to kill as many civilians as possible. At the top are rich and powerful states using billion dollar airforces to drop million dollar bombs on various targets. Although they speak of "smart bombs", civilian's often suffer the most during such bombardments.

Here is an article about this subject. It might help you form your opinions on this subject. Here is a quote from the article:

War amongst the people is the new paradigm of war, defined by General Sir Rupert Smith in his book The Utility of Force as "the reality in which the people in the streets and houses and fields - all the people, anywhere - are the battlefield. Military engagements can take place anywhere, with civilians around, against civilians, in defence of civilians. Civilians are the targets, objectives to be won, as much as an opposing force."

There could be no more apt description of the situation in Lebanon - or Iraq, Afghanistan and Chechnya, to name just a few other such situations around the world. In these, all the conventional forces are fighting "resurgents" or "terrorists" or "warlords" who are embedded in the local populations.

This is known, and occasionally even mentioned by military analysts and the media; but what is missed is their purpose: these non-state actors are fighting among the people not only in order to hide, literally and figuratively, beneath the radar screen of the conventional army, but because their main objective in fighting is the will of these people: they are seeking to win them over, or at least to achieve their tacit support, knowing that if they have the people on their side they will eventually attain their political goals - of removing the conventional political and military forces attacking them in the name of states and order, and then instating their alternative.

The political implications of this new reality are deep and disturbing - though once again, they should be no surprise - reflecting that despite declarations of "war on terror" and the like, war is no longer an option to get out of a political problem - at least not for as long as our militaries are still structured to fight an industrial battle against a nonexistent Soviet enemy, and the political-military way of thinking about using force is still based on models of industrial war.

Moreover, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Lebanon are showing that even if one were willing to use extreme force, in other words to use the hi-tech weapons to their full potential, even if the targets were not opposing, identical weapons but rather civilian objectives in which the opposing side takes shelter with very low grade weapons, even if there is a willingness to unleash the full might of the conventional army in this way and cause massive death and destruction, it simply does not work.

Civilians seem to take on 3 major roles in contemporary warfare. They are the battlefield, the target, or the objective. The idea of civilians as as target in themselves is a little strange to me. I think that civilians become targets only within a strategic calculation. Killing civilians is rarely an end in itself. Rather, civilians are a means to an end. Although civilians as means takes on many forms, I'd like to focus on two major examples: attacks on civilians qua political will and collective punishment. Civilians can be the targetted because they constitute the political will of their adversary. The best example of this is democracies where changing the political will of the demos is the aim. The other way in which civilians are an end is in collective punishment. The best example of this is targetting the social infrastructure necessary to sustain the adversary. This could be bulldozing homes of suicide bombers or attacks on the Beirut airport. (Although my examples are pointed, I want to make sure I'm not singling any one group out. I consider these very general phenomena NOT a condemnation against any particular state or group)

The question that lingers in my mind is why do we, as civilians, put up with this? Why do we permit our governments to bomb civilians thousands of miles away? Why do we allow our friends and relatives to become radicalized? Why are we so vulnerable to discourses that dehumanize other civilians? Shouldn't there be a transnational group of civilians who stand against attacks on civilians? Shouldn't we develop transnational values that declare being a civilian universal and inviolable? When will we stand on universal values to refuse any government or group permission to kill civilians?

Another Tragic Moment in American Exceptionalism

2006-07-26T13:35:00.000-07:00

The blog titled Once Upon a Time continually highlights significant phenomena and presents it with insightful commentary. In a July 25th post, Arthur Silber points out a recent incident where arrogant democrats demonstrated once again that America needs real political opposition. What America needs is a political party that doesn't ground its ideology (and rhetoric) in the notion of American exceptionalism, from wiki:

American exceptionalism is the idea that the United States and the American people hold a special place in the world, by offering opportunity and hope for humanity, derived from a unique balance of public and private interests governed by constitutional ideals that are focused on personal and economic freedom. It is close to the Manifest Destiny, a term used by Jackson Democrats in the 1840s to promote the annexation of much of what is now the Western United States (the Oregon Territory, the Texas Annexation, and the Mexican Cession). The term was then used in the 1890s by Republicans as a theoretical justification for U.S. expansion outside of North America.

Now this notion, in itself, doesn't necessarily lead to narcissicism and paternalism. But these characteristics are necessarily contained in an American conceptionalism articulated through imperialist action, more specifically, American exceptionalism articulated in the "American Century" creed. Here is a recent post on this subject and an excerpt:

Those who believe in the "American Century" tend to trust the exercise of American military power. They are often apologists for past military actions like Vietnam or the current conflict in Iraq.

The reason believers in the American Century trust the exercise of military power is that they see it as a part of America's unique mission in the world. For them, American power isn't the result of complex historical conditions, it's a sign of American excellence and righteousness. They believe America is powerful because it is supposed to be and with this power comes a responsibility. This responsibility is to dominate the globe through a beneficent hegemony.

The simplicity of this belief is astounding. It actually mirrors the tagline of the movie Spiderman, "With great power comes great responsibility." But this superhero simplicity is important in itself. It is the simplicity of the belief that prevents the governing class in the United States from forming policies that adequately address complex situations. Nowhere is this more evident in relation to Iraq. No lawmaker I've heard is capable of speaking about Iraq in realistic terms. Even worse is the failing of US lawmakers to speak of Iraq in such a way that accounts for the immense human suffering happening there.

Now back to the arrogant democrats and Arthur Silber's post, here is the phenomena he is responding to:

Senate Democrats in a letter to Maliki called his statements "very troubling" and asked for an explanation, but did not demand that his speech be canceled.

Several lawmakers said they would press Maliki for his view on the Middle East conflict in meetings before the prime minister makes his address, which is intended to try to reassure lawmakers that U.S. lives and money have not been squandered on a country descending into civil war.

Here is Arthur's response:

Oh, my, yes: we have to reassure the lawmakers -- who helped make this disaster possible, a disaster which they still will not disavow -- that their immoral and illegitimate actions were not taken in vain.

Yes indeed. We, not just Americans but the world, must always remember who got us into this mess. We must remember who miscalculated the war. We must remember who threw away the most common grip on morality. In reference to the phenomena itself, squandered? We through millions of life into chaos and turn people's homes into a warzone and we are worried if we have squandered our resources on them?

Unfortunately, there is more:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Maliki, in his White House appearance with President George W. Bush, again failed to state his view of Hizbollah, which the United States deems a terrorist organization.

"We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq. We've lost more than 2,500 American soldiers, more than 20,000 wounded. We deserve that answer," Reid said.

To which Arthur responds appropriately:

With all due respect -- which is to say: none -- shut up, you offensive idiot. No one asked us to "spen[d] hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq." No one asked us to send Americans to Iraq. We did that all on our own, goddamn us.

That's right. America chose this war. It was our choice. The Iraqi people don't owe us. Let's not waste another moment pretending we did them a favor and they owe us something. It's a disgusting point of view that could only be sustained with a unshakeable belief in American exceptionalism and the "American Century." These views make it so this democrats can say these things and sadly enough, believe them.

America needs a major moral overall. America's morality can no longer be assumed, it must be earned. One of the best ways it can be earned is through an ethical obligation to the people of Iraq. An ethical obligation to feed them until their country can feed themselves. An ethical obligation to treat Iraqis with respect and honor their rights. An ethical obligation to secure their country. An ethical obligation to allow Iraqis to benefit from their resources, not American companies.

The Dems should be ashamed today. al-Maliki is in a difficult position, he deserves a lot more respect. The American governing class needs to realize something quick. The leaders of other countries, especially Middle East countries, deserve MORE RESPECT. This respect requires them to overcome their unforunate faith in the "America Century."

The Farce of 1559

2006-07-25T14:09:00.000-07:00

Let's just seriously cut all this bullshit aside. As the assault on Lebanon continues, Israeli hasbara agents have continued in their "explaining" of how such attacks are "justified". Hasbara has actually been the propaganda mouthpiece of the Zionist movement even before the inception of the State of Israel. That's what got more Zionist immigrants in the first place, and many have faced sordid conditions in camps and tents upon their arrival to "Zion". But anyways, what we are seeing is a sickening, gruesome and barbaric invasion of a sovereign state, whose government has once been kind of a "friend" of the United States. Either way, Israel wanted this war: they kept land mines amok in Lebanon's south, and kept prisoners in their jails... and two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped as bargaining chips. What happened afterwards was probably the most disproportionate "retaliation" I have seen in my life... and yet Israelis justify it by saying that Israel is "exercising restraint"?! Over 400 people are dead because of what Israel did, and Lebanon's infrastructure... destroyed! Gaza is also under assault, where over 100 people have died in the past few weeks... and yet again, Israeli apologists claim that Israel is "justified". Downplaying the tragedy won't work: the Palestinians and the Lebanese have been suffering under the most brutal force Israel has shown in the past few years since the Intifada.

Well, let's start ground up. Remember that link I posted about As'ad Abu Khalil claiming that the attack was a conspiracy to implement U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559? You know, the one which

Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non- Lebanese militias

, among other things? Well, just to let you know, it is this part that the Israelis are mainly concerned about. The "fair and electoral" process was more of a secondary subset of the resolution. What's even more ironic is that Israel has never abided by any of the resolutions abided by it, and that the resolution in question here strictly calls for exercising full sovereignity of the Lebanese government over all of Lebanon with no exceptions. Furthermore, that same resolution calls for the withdrawal of all foreign armies; therefore, according to this special resolution, the Israeli presence in Lebanon is illegal. However, it's another demand altogether for the Lebanese to place a "security force" on the border of Israel and Lebanon, preferrably the Lebanese Army?

Lebanese Army? Since when did the army of another sovereign nation become subservient to the security demands of another supposed sovereign nation? Well, Israel, over the past few years, has been trying to control the region, sacrificing the peace, freedom and security of other people for the sake of its own. For example, there are border crossings in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip that are monitored by Israeli security forces. Palestinians are subjected to humiliation, harrassment and other forms of human rights violations while there. Every single agreement between the Arabs and Israel in the past (during the Arab-Israeli wars) ended with more gains for Israel and more losses for the Arabs, whether physically (land, etc.) or not (security, etc.). Even during those years, the security and freedom of the Palestinian people has been violated at the expense of that for the Israelis. Whatever it is, it's a shame: Israel has never shown respect for those it's pitted against, even in times of peace.

Either way, it seems things aren't going well for the Israelis. According to Al Jazeera, which has been covering this conflict better than any other network, Israel has been suffering defeat and humiliation in this little war. Hizbullah soldiers, it seems, are fighting and faring better than their Zionist counterparts. Moreover, Israel's image is deteriorating, just like it did back in the 80's: more than 400 Lebanese, mostly civilians, are dead. Furthermore, most of Israel's casualties are soldiers. Don't take me wrong: there are too many civilians caught up and measures should be taken to ensure their safety... on BOTH sides. Lebanese infrastructure has been almost totalled. However, it surprises me that still many people condone it. But much of the world has woken up to this atrocity. Anouar Gharbi, president of Rights for All Association, Geneva, has claimed something worthy of my praise and commendation:

"We have chosen a silent march to show that there is no word to qualify the unqualifiable."

I couldn't agree more: Mr. Gharbi's talk is seriously gold. The U.N. has definitely lost its conscience, and that damn veto was all it took to spark the world into an outrage. I mean, the sight of John Bolton (what an ass) saying that "Israel has a right to defend itself" made my puke. Has he seen, first, what caused the capture of the two soldiers, and how brutal the "retaliation" was? I doubt it. Certainly, the U.N. has a dead conscience. The ongoing suffering has failed to cause much outrage against the Israeli assault.

There is no defense for this recent attack on Lebanon. When is someone or somebody going to stop this senseless violence? I see the only way to end it is to exchange all prisoners with no exceptions, and ensure mutual security for all Lebanese, Palestinians and Israelis. If U.N. 1559 is to be implemented, then so should every single resolution filed against Israel in the past. However, as I continue to see all this mess unravel before my eyes, I grow more anti-Zionist by the minute. If anything, Israel has proven itself more than ever that it does not want peace. I pray that Lebanon will become Israel's Vietnam, and that they regain their minds and stop this senseless massacre, and head towards the negotiation table with an olive branch, not an assault rifle. I pray, also, for the safety of all innocent Lebanese, Palestinians and Israelis, and for an end to this conflicty... bus as things are looking, and with hypocrisy more stinking than ever, I don't think that things are headed towards the right direction.

Saracen

P.S. There's a conference tomorrow in Rome, which will be about the issue. I'm not holding my breath: I'm pretty sure that it will end with nothing.

An extension of argument from past posts

2006-07-20T15:53:00.000-07:00

Right guys and gals here is a post about America that i was following closley about half a year ago. It is fairly similar to the post about an American century yet it builds on top of it in relation to todays political climate. It is largley to do with America's pronounced conception of liberty and what it means for the average person. My favourite quote in the history of histories comes from an American called W.E.B Du Bois. He was a founder of black nationalism in America and he began writing ( and politically organising) around about the era of the first world war. It goes as thus: "Most men today cannot concieve of a freedom that does not involve somebody elses slavery". He was speaking largley of native white Americans indifference to the plight of native black Americans. This quote speaks volumes in not just this context! The American identity is in some respects selfish (as are all identities i suppose). However, its overiding good point is that it is based upon freedom. Therefore duplicity, although rife at present, should eventually balance itself out. The post below should serve to indicate that whilst the feeling at the time may have sought to garuntee a majority the right of "political freedom", the freedom that was gained necessarily involved a significant minorities political slavery. The post itself should demonstrate an analogous example of American identity that recycles itselfs and presents itself repeatedly, albeit at a different target. Here we go:

Below is a quote by the most famous of all contemporary American historians Eric Foner. It is about the cold war and the policy undertaken by Truman to gain public support for measures against communism. This was a result of a request from Britain. Britain couldnt afford to maintain her international role in the world (because of WW2) and requested that the US administration fill the power vaccum in places like Greece and Turkey as opposed to the soviet union. The reasons for this policy initiative by Truman stem from what happened after WW1: Whereby America retreated to its isolationist disposition. Truman wanted America to assert herself and claim her rightfull role as the leading nation of the free world. To do this however he needed public support which he got by depicting soviet communism as the anti-thesis of the American version of freedom. However, as Foner points out, this led to undesired side effects picked up by some critics at the time:

"In the Soviet union, Stalin had consolidated a brutal dictatorship that jailed or murdered millions of soviet citizens. With its one-party rule, stringent control of the arts and intellectual life by the state, and government controlled economy, the Soviet Union presented a stark opposite of democracy and "free enterprise". As a number of contemporary critics, few of them sympathetic to soviet communism, pointed out, however, casting the cold war in terms of a worldwide battle between freedom and slavery had unfortunate consequences. George Kennan, whose long telegram had inspired the policy of containment, observed that such language made it impossible to view international crises on a case by case basis, or to determine which genuinely involved either freedom or American interests.

In a pentrating critique of Trumans policies, Walter Lippmann, one of the nations most prominent journalists, objected to turning foreign policy into an idelogical crusade. To view every challenge to the status quo as part of the contest with the soviet union, Littmann correctly predicted, would require the United states to recruit and subsidize an "array of satelites, clients, dependents and puppets." It would have to intervene continuously in the affairs of nations whose political problems did not arise from moscow and could not easily be understood in terms of a battle between freedom and slavery...

American policy makers policy-makers used the language of a crusade for freedom to justify actions around the world that had little to do with freedom by almost any definition. No matter how repressive to its own people, if a nation joined the worldwide anti-communist alliance led by the United States, it was counted as a member of the free world."

This is happening today, right now, at this very moment. The war in Iraq had very little (if anything) to do with the war on terror yet it was sold to the American (and British) public as a war against terror and the expansion of western democracy. Bush has even likened the war on terror to a crusade which adds further weight to this line of argument.

September 11th is a watershed in American history. There are few who doubt this assertion. Yet its significance lies not simply in the struggle against Islamic fundamentalism. For the 11th September is being manipulated as a political tool to justify illegal and morally wrong acts in other countries. All the while other states that behave in just as deplorable way as the Islamic extremists who committed these henious acts get away with it because they have apparently joined the US in its crusade for freedom. Russia, for instance, justified a crackdown on Chechen people as its part on the war on terror.

For a long time i have argued that the War on Terror is fallacy and its being manipulated for other, alternative, purposes, and this historical analogy demonstrates that it has happened before. History is there to teach us of past mistakes in the hope that we dont make them again. Unfortunatley, this message appears to have been lost in the current political climate.

What we have therefore is the myth of the American century and the reality of the American century playing itself out as we speak. The propaganda and discourse of what this value system is supposed to incorporate is hypocritical and ambiguous. However, America has responded to these challenges in the past, we should not therefore write them off for the future. I have great confidence in the counter culture of America! I unfortunatley do not have such confidence in the political leadership of the time.

Faux News Praying for War

2006-07-17T14:00:00.000-07:00

The recent upsurge in violence in the Middle East has taken lives in Gaza, Israel, and Lebanon. I will not attempt to write an analysis of this complex and heartbreaking situation. I'm not an expert on the complexities of this situation. I want to address the media phenomena surrounding this tragic situation. I want to share my experiences as I watch and read about this war. I know that my experience is restricted to an abstract representation of a very real tragedy. Watching events unfold in my appartment is much different than sitting in a bomb shelter hearing rockets tear through buildings or watching bombs drop on the city I call me home.

I, like many Americans, have been following this situation as it unfolds in the media. The news coverage is, as usual, sensational and relatively barren of facts. The internet and a good selection of news feeds is a great gift to anyone who wants to know facts rather than talking heads and pundit analysis. But I still watched the news, mostly to get an idea of how these violent eruptions are geting expressed by the media. The most disturbing and apparent feature of the reporting of this conflict is the bellicose coverage occuring over at Faux news.

Faux's intentions are disturbingly obvious. They want more war. Hezbollah doesn't just have relations with Syria and Iran, it IS Syria and Iran. That's the main point of Faux's coverage. Every fact on the ground is subsumed beneath their desire for more war, specifically, wars with Syria and Iran.

For example, Bill Kristol says the following:

KRISTOL: No, it’s a result of our deducing from the situation in Iraq that we can’t stand up to Iran. I mean, when we stand up over and over and say Iran is shipping Improvised Explosive Devices into Iraq and killing U.S. soldiers, and Syria’s providing a line for terrorists to come into Iraq and kill U.S. soldiers, and that’s unacceptable. That’s not helpful. And then we do nothing about it. When Ahmadinejad says provocative things, continues to ship arms to Hezbollah, and we say, okay, maybe now we’ll give you direct talks. That, unfortunately, that weakness has been provocative. Ahmadinejad feels emboldened. Now we need to show him, and I think the administration has done a good job the last couple of days of showing him, that he miscalculated.
And indeed, this is a great opportunity. I think our weakness, unfortunately, invited this aggression, but this aggression is a great opportunity to begin resuming the offensive against the terrorist groups. Israel is fighting four of our five enemies in the Middle East, in a sense. Iran, Syria, sponsors of terror; Hezbollah and Hamas.

Fortunately this was one of the few times someone responded sensibly:

WILLIAMS: Well, it just seems to me that you want…you just want war, war, war, and you want us in more war. You wanted us in Iraq. Now you want us in Iran. Now you want us to get into the Middle East, where I think there’s a real interesting dynamic at play. I think it’s psychological on the part of Israel and many of its supporters, and I’ll throw you in here. Somehow you see Israel as weak, and you see Ehud Olmert as weak –
WALLACE: He’s the new prime minister —
WILLIAMS: The new prime minister of Israel. And the defense minister as weak. Everybody is weak in the aftermath of Sharon, and so everybody has to prove what a man they are in the Middle East, including — you’re saying, why doesn’t the United States take this hard, unforgiving line? Well, the hard and unforgiving line has been, we don’t talk to anybody. We don’t talk to Hamas. We don’t talk to Hezbollah. We’re not going to talk to Iran. Where has it gotten us, Bill?

Where has it gotten us Bill? Where has it taken the Iraqi people? Where will it take Lebanon? Where will it take Gaza? Will you take millions of Iranians and Syrians to the same place?

But this is merely one example of Faux news warmongering. This example is unique in that it has a retort, many more go on without an interlocutor willing to stall the war machine.

Here is a quote from Bill O'reilly on July 13th:

It's exactly what Iran wants. And Iran is behind the terror attacks on Israeli forces. The whole thing is part of World War III, ladies and gentlemen. Islamic fascism against the West. That global conflict, unfortunately, is here for the foreseeable future.

More from Bill, here is Bill's Talking Points for July 17th:
Like most things in life, in order to understand what's going on tonight in the Middle East, you must simplify the situation.

Israel wants peace. Most sane people understand that. They've withdrawn from Gaza, dismantled Israeli settlements on the West Bank, and like the folks in Northern Ireland, most Israelis simply want the violence to stop.

But the Islamic terrorists do not want peace. Both Hamas and Hezbollah continue to say Israel must be destroyed, Jews must die.

Therefore, you're not gonna have peace in the Middle East and when terrorists kidnap Israeli soldiers — or kill Israeli civilians — Israel is going to fight back.

So that's where we are tonight

The first paragraph of this excerpt should clue you into how Bill is going to spin this in order convince Americans to wage more war. Simplification is a useful tool for pundits like Bill, you might even call him a merchant of simplifications. Bill simplifies by setting up a division between the Israelis and the "Islamic Terrorists." I have to use quotes there because the violence is no limited to terrorists, open conflict like this kills civilians, but that's a truth that hardly supports Bill's desire for war. In Bill's world you have one side, the Israelis that "simply want the violence to stop: and on the other side you have terrorist that "continue to say Israel must be destroyed, Jews must die." Did you catch that? Because this is the fundamental belief necessary to use this conflict to drive Americans into war. Israel simply wants peace, the others want Jews dead. That is the fundamental point Bill is selling, Faux news in general echoes this belief in nearly every segment and through the jaws of its most treasured punidts.

More from Bill:

Right now you have two nations actively helping these terror groups — Iran and Syria. I mean come on! Hezbollah doesn't make rockets. They get them from Iran and other merchants of death. Iran is also encouraging the violence in Iraq, trying to gain nuclear weapons and creating chaos in the world's oil markets.

Clearly, ladies and gentlemen, Iran is the world's greatest threat. And right behind it are the terrorists who are not going to stop killing innocent people any time soon.

They want war with Iran. Whether it is nuclear weapons or Hezbollah, these warmongers will exagerrate and exploit anything to make it appear that Iran is an enemy and the ONLY option to is attack them.

Unfortunately for Bill there are many Americans who are not willing to follow his simplification and fall for another war devised in the mind of the most radical and foolish ideologues in America. Bill targets these people in the final paragraph of his talking points:

So "The Factor" is going to now take an even
harder line against Americans we believe are undermining the War on
Terrorism, that includes the ACLU,
the far left and people who are actually — if you can believe it —
rooting against America and Israel. They want us to lose. They want us
to lose. That is simply unacceptable.

Unacceptable? Sorry Bill, the enemies who've created in your own mind are not unacceptable. Nor are they are "rooting against America and Israel." We don't have to pick sides like this was some kickball game on a schoolyard. It's unfortunate that the tangible suffering of the Israeli, Lebanese, and Palestinian people are exploited by Bill in his ideological war.

These two examples are not unique on Faux News. This past weekend's coverage was impassioned with their lust for war. When history reflects on these past few years, Faux news might be a major factor behind global conflicts and American ignorance about those conflicts. But the conservative media in America isn't limited to Faux news, here is a sampling from the paragon of conservative warmongering, Rush Limbaugh (a quote from the blog Power of the Narrative, where the author reacts to Limbaugh calling this a gift to the world):

And what is Limbaugh’s justification for calling the spreading
devastation "a gift to the world"? For Limbaugh and others who share
this delusional, genocidal view of the world, this is the ultimate
"clash of civilizations." As I write this, he is now saying that this
war was "never intended to stop with Iraq." This is "finally" our
chance to go after Iran. As he puts it, there will be no peace until
one side finally defeats the other completely. I will leave to you the
determination of precisely what such a defeat might entail, and how
many people will have to die. And then, once the other side is finally
defeated, "the winner must set the terms of surrender to the loser."
And then, finally, there will be peace — the peace of a graveyard

(here is the audio)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Let there be no mistake here. I want this conflict stopped. Every rocket landing in Haifa or every missle in Lebanon is unacceptable. I refuse to pick sides because I believe the real necessity here is a cessation of violence not a world split into two.

Update, more warmongering:

Woolsey says it’s really about Iran vs the US. No ceasefires or arrests. He wants air strikes on Syria immediately. Gibson asked him why the US shouldn’t just hit Iran.

Woolsey: Well, ahh, one has to take things to some degree by steps.

Rabbi Michael Lurner posted this relevant article at Alternet.

Update... Yet another Faux News attempt to instigate war:

Part of the reason America hesitates to act is because generations of Pragmatists have tried to turn our brains into bags full of knots — making it harder for us to see the big picture and the bold strokes that are actually necessary to defeat our enemies.

Just as powerful is the warped logic of the "suicide bomb morality" of altruism, which identifies self-sacrifice as the essence of virtue. In any conflict, the good guys are expected to prove that they are good by backing down and sacrificing their interests — while nothing is expected of the bad guys, precisely because they are evil. That's why a Los Angeles Times op-ed demanded that Israel "has to be the most responsible party" by declaring an immediate ceasefire. Why should Israel be the first to back down from the fight? The author answers: "What, after all, can we expect from Hamas or Hezbollah?"

Notice the warped psychology this fosters: the onus is always on the good guys to turn the other check and submit to evil. This is a moral outlook that empowers the evil because they are evil and restrains the good because they are good. Should we then be surprised to see the evil emboldened to greater acts of destruction?

There is no longer any doubt what is driving the conflict in the Middle East: it is the Syrian-Iranian strategy of using proxies to strike at the U.S. and extend Iran's fanatical influence over the region. The only question is whether we can stop tying our brains into knots and stop turning the other cheek long enough to strike back and topple these two regimes.

Notice similar themes. The author of this article wants to simplify the situation and convince us to attack. This is the news??? Unbelievable.

Thinking Beyond the Myth of the "American Century"

2006-07-13T18:31:00.000-07:00

American's have always had a sort of 'civic religion'. This religion connects the American identity to a narrative that begins with religious oppression and heroes battling in the revolutionary war. It is taught in American history courses that deliver a tight plot of the American experience that diminishes America's problems and exagerrates it's righteousness. This 'civic religion' serves a purpose. It unites Americans of many different types. In the absense of other ways of uniting together, the civic religion provides a glue uniting all Americans. (I personally believe that this glue is also dangerous because it's vulgar form is just nationalism, but that's for another post)

But this 'civic religion' isn't a single phenomena. It can be found in the virulent defense of the constitution, among the flags dotting front yards in the suburbs, or the monuments to fallen soldiers in small towns. One of the most active forms of this civic religion today is the belief in the "American Century." When Henry Luce coined this term it was immediately grounded in American power in the post WWII world. It was an arrogant pronouncement declaring dominance over the world. But this dominance wasn't a mere statement of fact, it also included a responsibility. The responsibility was articulated over the years but culminated in the ideas expressed by those who are called neocons these days. I think I'd prefer to limit this idea to people like Kristol and Krauthammer. I recently spent hours watching Fukuyama on CSPAN. He clears up a few things about the 'neocons' and I believe that term is abused (and I admit, I'm a former abuser).

According to Andrew Bacevich, the myth of the "American Century" is now the fundamental political divide in America. I think he has something. He has touched upon a new test of political beliefs. This test informs how one feels about America's past, it's intentions, and how to approach the exercise of American power. Those of us who do not subscribe to the notion of the an "American Century" seek to restrain US military power. We seek to establish cooperation with other nations in international institutions. We see reasons to critique the use of American power in the past and we are cautious about exercising it's power in the future. Those who believe in the "American Century" tend to trust the exercise of American military power. They are often apologists for past military actions like Vietnam or the current conflict in Iraq.

In a new article over at AlterNet, Howard Zinn points out a couple of problems related to the myth of the "American Century":

It seems to me there are two reasons, which go deep into our
national culture, and which help explain the vulnerability of the press
and of the citizenry to outrageous lies whose consequences bring death
to tens of thousands of people. If we can understand those reasons, we
can guard ourselves better against being deceived.
One is in the
dimension of time, that is, an absence of historical perspective. The
other is in the dimension of space, that is, an inability to think
outside the boundaries of nationalism. We are penned in by the arrogant
idea that this country is the center of the universe, exceptionally
virtuous, admirable, superior.

The point of this point is contained in the final sentence in the first quoted paragraph. Americans must think beyond the myth of the "American Century" in order to guard ourselves against being deceived. The American public was DECEIVED by this administration during those crucial few months before the Iraq war. A citizenry guarded against such deceptions may have resisted the march towards war and lives could've been saved.

Lebannon and Hezbollah; Palestine and Hamas; and Israel

2006-07-13T15:16:00.000-07:00

The sordid affair that is under way in the middle east at this very moment has the potential to destabilize the entire region. The matter is made worse by the international communities indifference to the squalor and persecution that has afflicted many arab states in the region. I only hope that when the UN security council meets in the next few days, it pays heed to the fog of war that appears to be descending upon the region.

The story starts with the democratic election of Hamas, to which Israel of course took bad omens. What happened in the interim period actually sickened me to a degree (as a westerner) due to the European Union withdrawing its funding from palestine. Needless to say America very quickly withdrew its funding, leaving the only interested party of Russia still in communication with the Hamas party. This is the first problem i have with the situation. Mr Bush of America made a very real point during his election campaign to idicate that he was trying to export democracy to the 'deprived' places of the world. This was largley due to his foreign policy fiasco over the Iraq war: Sort of a 'saving of face through political election campaigning' if you like. Therfore the Iraq war transformed from a war to rid Saddam of WMD's to exporting democracy to the middle east.

It does seem strange therefore for Bush and the EU to withdraw their funding from the region because of a democratically elected regime that is not to their liking. Their bone of contention was ofcourse the Hamas mission statement that read "we are sworn to the destruction of Israel". Perhaps my fellow progressives could help me out here. Does the translation "destruction" actually mean what it means in English? Does it speak of destruction of the "state", "people" or "territory"? All are very important distinctions in my view! If I had to guess, then i would say that the statement is imprecise. Perhaps it is there as a piece of moral propaganda in order to gain popular support. The point of the matter is however that this is irrelavent. The crucial thing was (and still is) is that by Hamas entering the democratic process their policies and ideologies will become watered down because they will get bogged down in the political realities of life. Therefore they will have to drop their utopian rhetoric about the destruction of Israel, which is what, if im not mistaken, they actually offered to do. Never the less, the international community decided to take a hard line with Hamas that led to the regime becoming bankrupt so that it could not pay its employees.

Now if we fast forward to the present situation. On the 9th June an as of yet undiscovered assailant attacked a palestinian beach by shelling it killing approximatley 30 people. Israel denied all knowledge of this attack. But really, who would it have been? I will eat my hat if it is not Israel ill tell you that much.

From there we move on to the 10th of June when Hamas breaks its 16 month truce and fires rockets as retaliatory action into Israel. Deplorable i agree, but certainly understandable: Giving what had just befallen the families on the Gaza beach.

On the 25th of June, an Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was captured by Hamas. This, it could be argued, was a legitimate move by Hamas. Especially considering that they offered to open negotiations for his release. Palestinians, many of whom are innocent, are rotting in Israeli prisons. Therefore in my view this capture could be seen as justified.

Israel's reaction was fierce. The moved into Gaza in force killing many innocent people. I watched a rather amusing interview with a "middle east expert" (the name escapes me im afraid) from Washington. The BBC news girl, to her credit, gave some very penetrating questions: "How can Israel's actions be justified due to the captured soldier actually being a legitimate military target? Surely attacking targets that will mean civillian casualties is unjustified with the consideration that Hamas's target was military in nature?" The guy squirmed a bit and then came up with the point that i opened this post with: "but this is coming from a party that has said that it is sworn to the destruction of Israel!" Now call me superficial but this doesnt add up. I dont profess to be a middle east expert but even i can follow details and this guy has clearly not been following his recent history. If they have bafoons like this advising the white house then it is no wonder that we have the depolorable situation that we have today.

Now we arrive at today with the Lebonese Hezbollah political faction having captured a few more Israeli soldiers; supposedly in response to Israel's actions over the last captured soldier. George Bush said the following about the Israeli aggression towards Lebanon (which actualy is not governed by Hezbollah who are responsible for the capture):

" My attitude is this. There are a group of terrorists who want to stop the advance of peace. And those of us who are peace-loving must work together to help the agents of peace - Israel, President Abbas, and others - to achieve their objective.
Israel has the right to defend herself. [But] whatever Israel does should not weaken the government in Lebanon. We have been working very hard through the UN and partners to strengthen democracy in Lebanon.
Syria must be held to account. President Assad needs to show some leadership towards peace. "

I think it is damned disgraceful that Israel has attacked Lebanon's civillian infrastructure (the airport). This weakens the Lebonese government. But we do not have anything near a rebuke towards Israeli actions. Lets look at Ms Merkyl's response:

"We call on the powers in the region to seek to bring about a de-escalation of the situation. We cannot confuse cause and effect. The starting point is the capture of the Israeli soldiers.
It is important that the government in Lebanon, which is on a peaceful path, should be strengthened, but it must be made clear that the capture [of the soldiers] cannot be tolerated. The attacks did not start from the Israeli side, but from Hezbollah's side. "

This is wrong! The starting point is not the capture of Israeli soldiers. I wonder sometimes if politicians think that ordinary people actually watch the news. My mind does not last the length of time that gold fishes does. I am not confusng cause and effect Ms Merkyl! You seem to miss the point that the event of the captured soldiers has a cause in itself! Therefore in a rather bizare fashion the captured soldiers become the "effect" and the Israeli shelling becomes a "cause". Now who is to blame i ask you? Or is that too complicated?

Unfortunatley the international community has yet again failed to adequetley grasp the situation. I only hope that they can attempt to sort out the problem before we have a messy encounter that involves either Iran or Syria. Watch this space!

Conservativism as the problem?

2006-07-12T20:54:00.000-07:00

What do you call it when a piece of writing seems both radical and obvious at the same time? I read such a piece by Paul Waldman moments ago. Click here to read it yourself.

I'm always impressed when an author focuses much more on ideology than personality. I think one of the dangers of the current mobilization of progressives is that it's narrowly focused on individuals rather than ideas. President Bush is a force to be reckoned with because of the ideology that sustains his supporters and the worldview upon which their loyalty depends. We must begin to acknowledge that, in terms of politcal movements, individuals are accidental to ideology. This is why people fail to understand the real threat of terrorism. The threat isn't from individuals, it's the ideology that drives individuals to commit violence. We must avoid the dangers of focusing on individuals when we should be focusing on political forces

Waldman understands these dangers and suggests as an alternative, a sustained critique of conservativism:

What we haven’t yet seen from the left is a sustained critique, not
just of a particular politician or a particular policy, but of the
entire ideology and worldview of conservatism.

Waldman continues on with 3 points that articulate this sustained critique of conservativism:

Conservativism has failed
Conservativism is the ideology of the past--a past we dont' want to return to
Conservatives are cowards, and they hope you are to.

I believe Waldman expresses the 3 point best:

We’re afraid, they shout. We’re so afraid of terrorists, we have to
become more like the things we hate. We’re so afraid, we have to let
our government sanction torture. We’re so afraid, we have to let the
government spy on us. We’re so afraid, we have to give the president
dictatorial powers. We’re so afraid, we just want to rush to the arms
of politicians who say they’ll protect us.

About the last point. The concept of authoritarian personality explains a lot about why conservatives are so eager to uncritically submit to their leaders. Authoritarian personality is measured on many scales, one of them is authoritarian submission. Fear and it's consequential submission to an authority for protection are well represented in the concept of authoritarian personality.

Waldman seems to focus more on the strategic effects of a sustained critique of conservativism.

These are just a few ways progressives can begin to talk about
contemporary issues in the context of the larger ideological conflict
that shapes our political history. As an added bonus, when we make
clear just what it is we are against at its fundamental, philosophical
level, we define for the public who we are and what we stand for.
One of the troubling contradictions in contemporary public opinion
is that while on nearly every issue the progressive position is more
popular, the number of people willing to tell a pollster they consider
themselves “conservative” still far outnumbers the number willing to
say they’re “liberal.” It wasn’t always that way, and it doesn’t have
to be that way. Winning converts isn’t just about convincing people
you’re right on the merits of issues, it’s also about showing them that
your side is one they want to join, and the other side is one they want
to avoid.
The key challenge facing progressives right now is how—once George
W. Bush decamps for Crawford in January of 2009—to maintain the
increased energy motivating the political left in recent years . They
will be able to do so if they come to understand that George W. Bush is
not what they need to fight. What they need to fight is conservatism.

I believe there is another reason to participate in a sustained critique of conservativism. I believe that such a critique can push innovation. An analysis of conservativism in general should just yield critique, it should also allow us to experiment beyond the limits imposed on our societies by the conservative world view. We shouldn't just critique fear mongering because it will push our cause forward, we should participate in this critique because we want to move beyond the limits fear impose. We want to move beyond this fear into a courage that doesn't just liberate us from fear but enables us to explore new possibilities.

Besides innovation, I believe there is a question of scope that isn't addressed by Waldman. I believe that a sustained critique of conservativism will flourish if it expands it scope from the national political arena to international dialogue. National borders should not contain this critique.

Pursuing Reform in the Arab World

2006-07-06T13:29:00.000-07:00

It's being set aside every time people talk about it, and has been a source of debate for quite a while right now, considering the many viewpoints arising from the situation on the Arab world. The issue I speak of is reform, and this is just a base of the Egyptian issue that I talked about yesterday. It's a pressing issue, and has been called for by both Arabs and Westerners alike; however, both call for forms of reform which differ drastically in many aspects, especially on how to carry out reform at its core. The disagreement, as put by Al Jazeera, is on the question of how to reform Arab political, social and economical infrastructure, which itself will prove a difficult task.

Let's consider the Western initiative to reform. Most Westerners advocate that interventionism is the answer, meaning that the U.S., the U.K., and the E.U. should draft reform planning and implement it by force with almost no other alternatives. Although there are other "moderate" alternatives, as proposed by Danielle Pletka, one should take such plans with a grain of salt: interfering in MidEastern political affairs, internal and external, could prove dangerous: we have seen the financial support for dictators like Mubarak and the recently-arrested Charles Taylor of Liberia. Such support has proved negative and in fact hindering against reform, as support for antiquated programs and policies that have produced corruption amongst the government has proved thus inefficient and counterproductive. Moreover, we are talking about intervention, which goes strictly against the principles of non-aggression and thus produces unnecessary shifts in power and representation with regards to the people and the supposed puppet government produced out of such intervention. On the bright side, there have been attempts by Europe to positively instigate economical reform in Mediterranean Arab countries like Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria. According to Roland Danreuther, the Barcelona Process initiative, which was conceived after the farcical Oslo accords, suggested this method of reform through passive intervention. There are also countries like Tunisia which benefit from EU assisstance; however, such dependence on cash flow from outside sources might hamper progress of Tunisia's economical infrastructure, given the possibility of such funds being pulled from Tunisia's budget.

However, there has been overall more opposition to interventionist reform plans than support for them from the MidEastern street. Such reform plans are most likely a way to re-establish the Arab political system and balance of power in order to favor more neoconservative policies and subservience to U.S. imperialism. One of the most vocal critic of such reform initiatives is Dr. Sami Zebian, editor-in-chief of Al-Hawadeth Weekly magazine. The biggest assertion that he makes is that the U.S. is acting for the sake of its own interests; what country in its place wouldn't, though? However, Zebian hits the mark when he clarifies that America's interests in its reform initiative for the MidEast is based on political goals that might not bode well for people and governments of the MidEast alike. Moreover, he finds it hypocritical that the U.S. propose such an initiative now, given the current "political climate" and the illegal occupation of Iraq; this, of course, is understandable. The initiative also seeks to destroy Arab and Muslim unity, which is, in its case, making sure that Pan-Arab nationalism doesn't resurface. I agree with this only to a certain extent: I am an ardent opponent of nationalism, but I'm all for unity, Arab and Muslim in retrospect. We have already seen the Shah regime instigate Western values, supposedly "revered above all", into the Iranian populace, which willingly refused it and stuck to Islamic values (Shi'ite, really). Malaysia is one of the most successful Muslim countries, economically and politically. But to keep nations homogeneous culturally, which is what the U.S. and other Western powers have been doing since colonial times, is dangerous. Why?

One disturbing feature of the initiative is the concept of "no boundaries" between societies, therefore disregarding any human or social structure of such societies.

Such a concept is very dangerous. The level of freedom and rights varies from one Arab and/or Muslim country to another depending on the relationship and amount of communication between it and western culture. In addition, political circumstances could hinder any prominent political openness: Syria, for example, is under pressure with the Israeli occupation of its Golan Heights.

Dr. Zebian's statement struck me as politically correct, rather than parentally savvy talk regarding the way neoconservative politicians deal with the Middle East by radically painting all Arabs and their nations with the same paint brush. However, he speaks the obvious: each Arab nation is accustomed to its own traditions, culture, society, climate, etc. Therefore, treating them all the same way will elicit different responses, mostly negative because each nation would adversely respond to sudden change. On the other hand, I find it hypocritical that many rightwingers claim that Muslims living in Europe and the U.S. try to instill their values on others while they press for sudden reform and instillment of Western political and social ideals on the MidEastern people. This is nothing new in the blind-to-accountability extreme right. Returning to the topic of discussion, we can also see the risks such interventionism produces. The first comes from the "financial drain" (the depletion of the reserves of the nations involved) that would affect the countries struggling during the reform process. The second, and foremost, comes from the problem of exploiting tribal and sectarian divisions to achieve political gains, which is easily what imperialist powers have been doing since colonial times. Therefore, if interventionism is to be successful in providing reforms, one must seek a plan compatible for all groups, but interventionism at its best might favor one group over another with terms to certain resources, etc. Thus, one can conclude that interventionism is not a viable solution.

So, what must be done, then? Technically, we can't let interventionism get in the way of Arab political reform. Sadly, there are many advocates who claim that interventionism is the only solution because, according to such people, the Arab world will never change itself. Such a statement is racist, and backward as the statement "a tiger will never change its stripes"; that's of course assuming that Arabs are just animals and the only way to make them "human" is to become more "civilized" (i.e. Westernized). Putting such (politically) incorrect bullcrap aside, we can see that there have been several strides in reform in the MidEast. For example, there has been the recent elections in Qatar and also in Kuwait, with the recent introduction of female candidates in the latter run (sadly, no women won, but hey, this is a step, right?). Such reform initiatives waned, though, in places like Saudi Arabia, especially when the nation's populace fell to security crackdowns in response to attacks from within the nation. Political activism is still a problem in many areas as well, as political parties in certain nations have been banned from running. Free expression is limited, and religious values in society are being viewed in flux. With regards to the economy, a handful of nations in the Arab world suffer from corruption within the government, in the form of keeping cash from the public and downplaying salaries, etc. Furthermore, monetary systems in many MidEast countries are selective: it is more like survival of the fittest, with the richer upper class coming out on top at the expense of those below them. Poverty is another problem that needs to be addressed: even though it is a global problem, it doesn't make it someone else's problem (refer to above paragraph about interventionism). Socially, education and healthcare need to be addressed as well, making it necessary for people to see that such systems are reformed in order to better serve the people and provide for the next generations. Another problem unsung of is the influence from outside on our people and how it has swayed the public to stray away from Islamic and Arab values that are necessary to our survival; I'm not saying that it's a bad thing, but Arab culture and Islam must survive as well. Seriously, we can see that the road to reform is not going to be an easy one.

Speaking of Islam, it is also a subject of debate on whether to reform it or not. It is often argued that there must be a "Martin Luther" of some sort so he may "reform" Islam. Consider first that Islam does not have a body like the Catholic Church and is made up of many sects (according to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), he once said that Islam will be split into 73 sects). Furthermore, if you take a look at Islamic demographics worldwide, you will notice that most Muslims are concentrated in East Asia, but are otherwise dispersed throughout, therefore nullifying the concept of Islamic unity. I also posted in May that Islam itself is in no need for reformation because of how it is perverted and radicalized, but what needs to be reformed is how it is taught. For example, there should be less emphasis on radical aspects and more emphasis on the basic tenets and how to deal with them in life. Another thing that needs to be changed is not to root out extremist sheikhs, but to drown them out with the voices of more moderate Muslims, opposed to terrorism and U.S. imperialism alike.

According to Islam itself, reform is a must: it is a God-given duty for Muslims to rise against oppression and injustice, promote virtue and good policies, and root out vice and corrupt policies alike. A prominent Islamic voice against corruption has been Sheikh Yusuf Al Qardawi. He claims, for example, that economic corruption is one of the most important issues that are Islamically addressed, along with the issue of political balance of power. Many other issues that need reform come into focus, such as the prevention of moral corruption through the invasion of Western culture, the prevention of environmental corruption in the form of pollution and other human actions that plague the Earth, and many other issues like education, science, medicine and other social aspects. Like myself, he is opposed to interventionism and against corruption within the Arab political elite, and stresses the importance of gradualism during the developmental and reform processes, which is contrary to the abrupt changes that the U.S. plans to implement. Above all, Islam seeks to reform the nations so that they may become independent and more functional.

So, where must the change come from? As Amr Musa said (repeating an adage),

"Change must come from within."

Such a proposal seems impossible to comprehend for those who do not believe that the Arabs should be allowed to govern themselves. An Arab resource website, Al-Bab.com, has published a compilation of reports on the issue. Taking from this, one can see that the main issues for reform are split into three distinct areas: political, economical and social, of which the first and third are of greatest importance, even though they are powered by the second.

To address political reform, we need to gradually abolish the authoritarian regimes that rule over us and place instead centrist regimes based on both religious and secular principles, taking the best from the two and discarding what might offend minorities within the Arab world. While we have seen what sectarian divisions and governments bring unto themselves in Iraq (more chaos), one must put in mind that Arab political parties should bring no mention of sects, but of political ideologies. Egypt, though still rife with corruption, is the closest example of this aspect. Furthermore, capital punishment should go with the policies as dictated by Islam: unless the criminal repents for his/her actions, the punishment has to be applied. Regarding the judicial system, fair trials have to be implemented, and witnesses should be taken into consideration. A representative per district per city has to be elected to represent the people of the said district in parliament, and efforts should be made to suit laws for the people, not the government. If laws become inefficient, they should be renewed. Moreover, care should be taken that the balance of power is preserved, and that leaders don't have their butts stuck to the throne for at most five years. Also, considering the different political climates in each country, one must apply democracy gradually to each country with the people of the said country making the changes for themselves. In addition to all this, the public must play a part in actively getting to know their rights and keeping the government in check, not the other way around.

With regards to the economy, I'm not an expert at this. All I can say is that the Arab countries should work to keep free trade up while trying to decrease dependence on aid. Moreover, subsidization should decrease, as this is a source of corruption in many Arab countries, especially those in the Gulf States. Governmental projects should be made to discover resources, exploit them, and, if necessary, nationalize them for the benefit of reform until the necessary goals are achieved. Free trade can be encouraged for the benefit of the Arab populace, and effects of globalization that might have effects on the society should be watched over. The Arab Business Council already stated their plans for economic reform in the MidEast. They include:

Economic Liberalization and Reforms

-Open the markets through trade liberalization schemes in both goods and services (while some Arab governments continue to manage macro-economic stability)
-Harmonize trade policies across the region, creating an Arab Free Trade Zone
-Remove restrictions on foreign investments to drive Foreign Direct Investment,
-Intellectual Property Rights, investment, property protection rights
-Boost exports, focus on services and value added products
-De-emphasize low cost expatriate labour and build a local, skilled labour force through good education systems
-Diversify the economy to encourage entrepreneurship and a greater role for the private sector through improved access to trade financing
-Build infrastructure – roads, ports, airports, storage and handling facilities
-Eliminate government monopolies

Governance

-Promote respect for the rule of law
-Enhance transparency on economic data and policy-making procedures
-Address corruption and favouritism
-Drive private-public partnerships
-Enhance accountability
-Allow full protection for foreign investments and property rights
-Improve the quality of the public sector
-Strengthen legal mechanisms for commercial arbitration and dispute settlement
-Strengthen the Arab judicial system including its independence and efficiency

Human Resource Development

-Improve educational systems and align them with the needs of national, regional and, indeed, global markets
-Focus on vocational and technical training in line with the needs of industry
-Improve productivity at the macro and micro levels
-Enhance Research & Development efforts
-Encourage women’s empowerment

This is pretty much a solid blueprint for economical progress. With respect to the current situation, Sufyan Alissa of Al Ahram weekly wrote an excellent article of reform in perspective. He writes that,

Since the mid-1980s the Arab world has experienced several waves of economic reforms, mainly as part of the stabilisation and structural adjustment programmes prescribed by the Bretton Woods institutions which followed the principles of market reform in reducing the role of the state in the economy. Despite this reform, whether in response to internal or external forces and pressures, the Arab countries have failed to sustain economic growth, improve their position in the international market and promote foreign investment. At the same time, unemployment and poverty rates have increased sharply. In light of these major problems, Arab states and several international institutions have tried to change the style of reform and focus more closely on governance issues, liberalise the economy, thoroughly privatise public institutions and be more sensitive to the issue of unemployment and poverty. In all cases this reform has been shallow, has reproduced the same economic elites that are often close or part of the political regime, and has therefore failed to yield substantial changes in the standards of living of ordinary people in the region.

This is just to stress on my point that employment should be diversified and made readily available, with salary grants enforced. Furthermore, poverty should be countered by encouraging charity and at the same time giving those who are less fortunate a better position with better jobs.

Arab countries have not undergone economic transformations or fundamental economic reforms that are based on a clear and well defined vision. Arab countries have relied on oil revenue, remittances from abroad and aid to delay implementing fundamental economic reform. These sources have been used as a tool for easing economic and political pressures, and keeping the social contract intact by purchasing loyalty to the state.

The Arab states have thus failed to become economically independent, and thus independence is necessary. This is accomplished by exploitation of resources and bringing forth free trade and privatization of businesses (thus, independence of economy).

Three main factors make profound economic reform in the Arab world imperative. The first of these is that oil revenue is temporary and there is no guarantee that oil prices will not collapse in the coming years as in the 1980s. Second, the high population growth rate, and the need for creating millions of jobs during the coming 20 years, exacerbate the need for reform. The third factor is that labour migration prospects have diminished and thus remittances from abroad can no longer be considered as one of the main sources of revenue in the case of Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan. Given this gloomy picture and in direct contradiction with the prevailing approach, Arab countries should seize this opportunity and use these resources to mitigate the negative impact of fundamental reform in the nearest future.

In addition, Arab countries often use the occupation of Palestine and recently the occupation of Iraq as an excuse to maintain the status quo and to avoid implementing fundamental reform. Their argument is that reform under this circumstance has the risk of political instability. While this factor plays an important role in some countries, certainly in the case of Palestine and Iraq, for other countries, it indicates the lack of good governance structure and the lack of real political and legal commitment essential to substantive and expansive reform. Moreover there is a lack of transparency and accountability in implementing existing reform policies and programmes, and a lack of inclusiveness of different parties in the reform debate, particularly civil society and representatives of the private sector.

Breaking the status quo would then be necessary for reform: in that case, a Palestinian state must be achieved in order for reform to continue.

The current political regime in the Arab world does not permit the advancement of the reform agenda while the institutional structure is incapable of creating the needed environment for implementing successful reform policies. This state of affairs strengthens the resistance capability of the groups benefiting from maintaining the status quo arrangements, and limits the space for greater public participation in policy-making and the shaping of the reform agenda. Economic reform in the Arab world needs to move into a new direction if the economic challenges that have been facing the region are to be addressed. Certainly, it needs to be matched with political reform that is based on domestic agenda, so the hope for better quality of life in the region can be more realistic.

An excellent analysis, overall, which asserts my above points.

Now, on to social reform. Privatization of health care is a vital step, as this removes the load from the government and enables it to implement political and economical reform without regard to social issues. Furthermore, the judicial system, with respect to social issues, should be re-evaluated: freedom of expression should be implemented, and public education by privatized institutions should be implemented in case of Islamic countries and reserved societies (for example, smoking, drinking, etc.). Gun control should be modernized, as increasing gun control might lead to crimes, according to this AEI report. With regards to education, the system should incoroporate both Arab and Western elements (the best of two worlds), and reforming Arab education with recent scientific findings, curricula, etc., and make Arab education world-class, as it was during the times of the Islamic Caliphates. The issue of abortion should be taken seriously, though, from my standpoint. Returning to freedom, freedom should be given, but education on sensible freedom, which is simply freedom with order, should be encouraged. The public, furthermore, should be made politically aware and more open to differing viewpoints. While the Arab schools of thought (in all areas) differ widely in their opinions on worldly matters, it can still be improved. University education should also be a focus, and accreditation is a must for all schools professing foreign curricula. Religion is another aspect sacred to Eastern society, as Eastern societies have historically drifted towards religion more than secularism. Religious freedom should be encouraged, and, with the privatization of construction firms, etc., so should freedom of worshipping in wherever you want; that is, mosques, churches and synagogues, etc., should be treated equally. The workforce should also be given freedoms, and the right to strike when the situation demands it. In addition to all this, the public should be made aware of what their rights are and how they can make their voice heard in the parliament. Security is a concern in this troubled region of the world, but a security force should be made so that they don't endanger the liberties of the people (i.e. no inhibitions whatsoever on press freedom). The armies should also be able to rebuild themselves, while abiding by international law. In this way, reform is gradually implemented and brought successfully into the Arab world, as people should become accustomed to each reform procedure, one step at a time.

Well, there's a lot to this topic, but that's all my guts can spill. I leave you with a link to the Arab Reform Forum and a link to the Arab Reform Initiative, in case you are interested in more details. Reform and progress are necessary steps in political progression, as progressiveness roots out all conservative evils and bad policies, while implementing what's best for the people, not serving the selfish interests of the government and its politicians who supposedly represent their people. In the long run, reform will be tough, but it will be possible. And hopefully, we will be able to root out the darkness, and bring out the light. Perhaps, the Arabs will rid themselves from Western intervention and instead stay on a course of free trade, with the establishment of a Palestinian state and full recognition of Arab sovereignity. I pray that we enter a new age of honor, glory and light, out of this age of corruption, betrayal and greed, and that we as Arabs become fully independent and show the world that we are capable of being leaders of tomorrow and beacons of hope for those who seek it, and preserve Islam, bringing it out of the murky depths of Islamophobia and perversion. Finally, I'd like to stress that change must come from within. It won't be an easy path, but in the long run, I'm sure we can make it.

Saracen

America's Arduous Ethical Task After Abu Ghraib

2006-07-06T12:56:00.000-07:00

I do not believe that America fully comprehends neither the meaning nor the effects of the cruel acts committed at Abu Ghraib prison. Certainly Americans know about the images and they have developed various tactics for coping with them but I see no evidence of a moral response equal to the depravity exposed by the Abu Ghraib images.

The official response to the Abu Ghraib nightmare was to push the responsibility to a few "bad apples" and deny any sort of systemic problem related to the abuses. The conservative media response included the "bad apples" defense but also employed dehumanization and trivilization. Some even accuse people of trying to make the US fight a "politically correct war". This response was expected from pro-war apologists, it's there immediate response to every fact associated with the Iraq war. But moral failure in relation to the Abu Ghraib horrors was not restricted to the American right-wing. The larger themes of the national dialogue about these abuses were often focused on how it affected the war effort or the political effects, the actual suffering and the prevention of future abuses weren't adequately represented.

This fact is pointed out by Whitmer in his article “‘Torture Chambers and Rape Rooms’ What Abu Ghraib Can Tell Us about the American Carceral System” (Centennial Review 6.1, 2006) (I can only provide excerpts because the full article is only available by subscription, I found these excerpts at one of my daily blogs, archive.)

Attempting to correct them as abuses is also futile. There are not
moral boundaries to be discovered. To attempt to remove torture and
rape from the American carceral is to attempt to remove a structure’s
foundation, while maintaining its walls. There is no fix. The American
carceral doesn’t operate by rules that allow the imposition of a
kinder, gentler version of itself. It is too greatly intertwined with
the interests of capital, from the Foucaultian understanding that the
social system itself is only a replication of the carceral: to the
nation-building processes of slavery and wage- slavery H. Bruce
Franklin lays out, to the colonial usages Ward Churchill describes, to
the demarcation of class and social boundaries Jeffrey Reiman proposes.
Likewise, as authors as various as Eldridge Cleaver and Slavoj Žižek
point out, America’s entire symbolic order depends on the sexual
psychopathology that creates our Abu Ghraibs.
The reason for
this is fairly simple: the victims are not the point. Donald Gregg’s
New York Times article made this perfectly clear. The Abu Ghraib
scandal only exists in how it “devastatingly undercut America’s
standing in the world, or, more important, our view of ourselves” (qtd.
in Dratel and Greenberg 2005, xvi). The interests of the victims are
not at stake. What is at stake is purely ideological, a reaffirmation
of American values. Just as with Bush, Gregg’s point is that the
victims only exist in how they will be allowed to represent the United
States.

I'd like to leave Whitmer's critique of American society at large and it's carceral problems. This is an issue that I will be following and discussing for years to come. I included it because I want to be clear that I think the Abu Ghraib abuses are an effect of grander American ethical problems. I want to focus on the second paragraph. I want to focus on the victims.

The meaning of the abuses at Abu Ghraib cannot exclude those men, women, and children that were held at Abu Ghraib. Whitmer correctly identifies the stakes in the national discourse regarding Abu Ghraib, they are purely ideological. The stakes must be changed to include a full recognition of the victims as human beings. This recognition must be extended to all the people detained by the US. This recognition must be extended to everyone who lives in a theatre of US military operations. Of course the ethical task of recongizing human beings as such is one shared by all people of all nations, no politcal grouping is innocent of exploitation and abuse and we are all part of a global economy that exploits.

America's ethical task after Abu Ghraib is a difficult one. Recognizing human beings as such in a war zone involves a willful restraint on American power. This means adopting standards of conduct that recognize that human beings are caught up in this war zone and that they deserve to be treated as human beings.

SCOTUS Decision Recognizes Geneva Conventions

2006-06-29T19:24:00.000-07:00

It's hard to find good news on the radio but today I heard good news. Not only was it good news, it was good news about a decision of a branch of my government. The Supreme Court held that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to the conflict against al-Qaeda.

The case decided today was the Hamdan case, here is some background on the case.

I'm not a legal scholar by any means but thanks to the internet, I have the opinions of legal experts before me. Here is the SCOTUS blog and a post by Marty Lederman. Here is two major points about today's decision:

(i) that the President's conduct is subject to the limitations of statute and treaty; and (ii) that Congress's enactments are best construed to require compliance with the international laws of armed conflict

I couldn't be happier about these outcomes.

Regarding the first point, the beauty of American democracy is the separation of powers. The separation of powers is a way to balance power in American politics without rendering America impotent. I cannot stress how important the separation of powers is. This administration has seriously undercut balance and the republican congress has helped it every step of the way. Ever since I read Hannah Arendt's On Revolution I have become a staunch poponent of the separation of powers.

Regarding the second point, America must stop looking at its international obligations as unfair hindrences. It's the sign of a strong country that it makes commitments and keeps them. I sincerely believe that international law and international institutions are the best response to global problems. Pollution doesn't care one bit for national borders. The sex slavery trade is global. Organized crime is global. Terrorism is global. Our responses to these ills must be global. As far as I can tell the best way to establish global responses to global problems is through commitments made by nations willing to cooperate to combat common problems. For these reasons (and many more) I celebrate this:

the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today's ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely," and that "[t]o this end," certain specified acts "are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever"—including "cruel treatment and torture," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment.

It seems to me that this element of the ruling will have the most impact, thank goodness!

If you are interested, here is some more analysis over at Daily Kos.

False Flag: Red Alert

2006-06-29T18:23:00.000-07:00

Ladies and gentlemen...boys and girls...children of all ages...

do you know what a false flag attack is???

It is probably the deadliest thing in the world. When one nation/state/group attacks itself and blames their "enemy" for the attack to justify yet another counter-attack or strike, as a motive for war.

Putting these next couple of words in the same sentence also makes me shudder...

Israel, Mossad, Iran and a Nuclear False Flag Attack.

What are the implications?

The danger of a faked nuclear attack on America, to be staged by rogue British, American and Israeli Mossad operatives, assisted by select criminal, compromised, drug-addicted or mind-controlled "Muslim" patsies and designed to support a global war against Iran and Islam. The attack would also be used to further legitimate the building of the genocidal wall in Jerusalem and possibly even an expansion of, rather than a pullout from, the settlements in Gaza and the West Bank in furtherance of total Israeli dominance in the Middle East. The attack would be aided by Israeli partisans in the United States, and stage-managed in the Congress by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and its attendant PR firms and media empires. As a descendant of Russian Jews, I consider it a particularly important personal civic responsibility to expose the deception and danger of Zionism and its terrorist agency, the Mossad, who will probably furnish the patsies. The Mossad is a leading candidate for architect of the 9/11 attacks.

Only time will tell...God forbid something catastrophic will happen that will lead to World War 3.

Weapons of Mass Deception: Exposing the Lies of the Iraq War

2006-06-27T00:20:00.000-07:00

During the early days prior to the unjust invasion of Iraq, much of the public was lead into being convinced that Saddam was a threat and just had to go. The media served to propagate the lies that Bush Jr. and his cronies spewed out in order to justify an impending invasion on the Cradle of Civilization, but now that we're seeing in the clear, we have exposed the lies for what they are whenever they came out, every step of the way. And this is exactly what I am going to do right now.

One of the first statements that "justified" the Iraq war was the "threat" that Saddam posed to the West. Many people started thinking about a potential WMD attack on the U.S.A., which is something that they have not done during the previous administration and after the Gulf War, when he had his WMD's ready for bear. Bush succeeded in convincing the American public (supporters, really) that Saddam was a "threat to world peace". He managed to gain more support for this outright invasion which violated the sovereignity of a foreign nation. What else? Oh, yeah, Saddam was a "bad, bad man", in the words of that old coot, Rumsfeld. Putting all this political bullshit aside, let's call this exaggeration for what it really is: somehow, Saddam became a threat because the Bush admnistration said so, but he wasn't when Clinton was in power, nor was he a threat after the Gulf War on Kuwait ended. Now, we are supposed to believe that after 10 years of sitting on the throne, he somehow became a threat, even when the existence of his WMD's (the next lie I shall expose) was a matter of debate that is in fact still going on today?

The thing is, Saddam wasn't a threat to begin with. The "ceasefire" he "broke" (allegedly not letting inspectors see his WMD's) was used as a pretext to violate Iraq's sovereignity and launch a full-scale invasion that would topple Saddam. Don't take me wrong: I hate Saddam like I hate most politicians, but I'd rather see Iraq be liberated by Iraqis, not by some foreign invader (it wasn't even a "liberation" to begin with). The Guardian wrote a report on the issue, citing a former U.S. intelligence official, who claimed that the "threat" factor was based on faulty intel. A similar case was found in the UK, where Blair and his aides have beefed up the "threat" that Saddam posed.

The falsehood that Saddam posed a threat has to do with his mythical "WMD's". It happened that during the Iran-Iraq war, also called the First Gulf War, the American administration supplied Saddam with chemical and biological weapons. The U.K., ever the puppy of the aggressive American war machine, has also supplied Iraq with weapons. Amnesty International presented a report on this issue, and I cite:

German companies have been subjected to criminal investigations on suspicion of violation of the arms embargo against Iraq. The UK and the USA have been accused of supporting the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons program through the sale of chemicals and technology.

"British firms sold thousands of kilos of the basic ingredients of nerve and mustard gas to Iraq and Iran last year, the Department of Trade confirmed yesterday... the Department’s figures show that 2,000 kilograms of methyl phosphonyl difluoride has been exported to Iraq. This is the basic ingredient of the nerve gas Sarin... British firms also sold 38,000 kilograms of dimethyl methylphosphonate and other Sarin ingredients to Iraq."Andrew Beitch, The Guardian, 6 April 1984

Four years after this article was published, in March 1988, an estimated 5,000 people were deliberately killed and thousands wounded as a result of chemical weapon attacks by Iraqi forces on the town of Halabja in Northern Iraq. Most of the victims were civilians, many of them children and women.

This isn't what really damns the American administration. What really did was that Reagan, acting U.S. President at the time, knew about the gassing of the Kurds prior to supplying Iraq even more weapons, according to this New York Times report; such weapons were continuously being supplied until 1989. However, the question is not who presented WMD's right now or if they are not in Saddam's possession. The question is where. I have several possibilities. UNSCOM visited Iraq in the late 90's, after the Second Gulf War. According to their report of the visit, they have seen to it that loads of biological and chemical weapons were decommissioned and destroyed. Assuming that Sarin and VX-2 were amongst the gases remaining in Saddam's WMD cache, he still couldn't make use of them: biological and chemical weapons degrade and decompose with time, and thus the weapons couldn't have posed a threat, let alone explode on their own. It's kind of like a man and a gun in front of him. The man fires the gun, not itself.

There's also the allegation that Saddam moved the WMD's elsewhere. Syria was one of those possibilities: both countries have Ba'ath party leaders focused on socialist principles. Surely, the WMD's moved there? Not at all, and according to the Asia Times,

Syria has long been a haven for Iraqis opposed to Saddam. Syria's branch of the ruling Ba'ath Party broke with the Iraqi Ba'ath Party in 1966 amid political infighting.

During the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88, Syria was the only Arab country to support Persian Iran. Syria also joined the US-led coalition against Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War.

Although current relations between Iraq and Syria are improving, they are certainly not improving on the grounds of Saddam as a leader, but on part of U.S. cronies like Allawi. Iran is definitely not an option: Saddam, being a secular sectarian Sunnite, has hated Iran for its leadership ever since the First Gulf War. Could he have then gave it to Al Qaeda?

The Al Qaeda connection was faulty, but it was still used as a reason to motivate the war machine. Although this connection was denied long time ago, many people still believe that such a connection existed. It was already obvious, even before the war, that Bin Laden hated Saddam, and branded him an "infidel" because of his brutal secularism, according to Samia Nakhoul. Bin Laden also mentioned that "Saddam's secularist socialist government lost credibility", so an alliance between the two bodies was unlikely. Furthermore, consider this: Saddam is a secular brute, while Bin Laden is a religious extremist. Saddam is a nationalist, but Bin Laden is not (I don't like Bin Laden, though). They have opposite goals, and thus an alliance between them would not only defy nature, but also insult intelligence.

The Washington Post already finished this matter, citing the poorly-funded September 11 commission report.

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

Notice the italicized statement in the second paragraph. This could be what Bin Laden meant by Saddam losing "credibility" with him: although they may have spoken with each other, Saddam had no interest in Bin Laden's aims, and a mutual feeling developed much later on.

Another lie that this war brought up was the oil issue. It was stated that many U.S. officials, like Bremer, claimed that Iraqi oil "belonged to the Iraqis". Such statements were made under false pretenses, when it was discovered that oil in Iraq was being exploited by the U.S. The National Strategy for Victory in Iraq is clearly full of holes and exposes the true aims of the Coalition, putting aside all propaganda and cutting to the chase.

When one understands the lingo of neocons, everything becomes clear, and their speeches, no matter how whitewashing, are irrelevant. According to Think Progress, a leftist think-tank, the NSVI holds no "standards for accountability" for actions committed by the Coalition (typically nationalist of them), ignores all "key challenges" that would be posed upon the Coalition in Iraq's changing political and social climate, and dismisses all accounts of violence and the likelihood for violence in Iraq to increase. The Washington Post reported that the Coalition was to sieze Iraq's southern oil fields even prior to the Iraq invasion, but that's not what really damns the Coalition's aims. What really does is the so-called "PSA" (production sharing agreement) policy of acquiring oil in Iraq. Joshua Holland of Alternet cites an interview with Antonia Juhasz, who claims that,

"The United States crafted a new oil law for Iraq that provided for production sharing agreements (PSAs), which are contractual terms between a government and a foreign corporation to explore for, produce and market oil. Production sharing agreements are not used by any country in the Middle East or, in fact, by any country that's truly wealthy in oil. They're used to entice investors into an area where the oil is expensive to produce or there isn't a lot of oil."

The fact that PSA's haven't reached the MidEast makes it a totally new thing, and enables the U.S. to call the shots on purchasing oil, especially corporations like Halliburton, which was awarded the role of "rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure" (or more like sabotaging the oil infrastructure). What really makes the PSA's dangerous is the fact that

"All undiscovered oil fields are now open to the PSAs. That means, depending on how much oil there is in Iraq, foreign companies will have control over at least 64 percent of Iraq's oil and as much as 84 percent."

We're not just talking about oil, but controlling at most 84% of Iraq's oil; technically, this is a massive oil grab, and Bremmer's empty rhetoric that "Iraqi oil is for Iraqis" is easily thrown into the dustbin.

The war itself had a lot to do not with faulty intelligence, but with the misuse of intelligence. The "faulty intelligence" excuse was used to hide the real motives behind the Iraq war. Intelligence itself revealed no WMD's, and no links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. According to this provoking documentary on the issue, "The Dark Side" on PBS's Frontline (thanks, NabberGnossi), officials like Dick Cheney quarreled with the CIA in order to take control over intelligence and manipulate it in a way that would suitably favor their side of the argument and "bring the war on terror to Iraq". For example, John Brennan, Deputy Executive Director of the CIA from 2001 to 2003, spoke of the increasing pressure to manipulate intelligence in order to justify the war on Iraq.

"I think there was a feeling within the agency that intelligence was increasingly becoming the meat in the sandwich on this one; that we were being asked to do things and to make sure that that justification was out there. Responding to the requests from the Hill for that National Intelligence Estimate in a very short period of time and compressed schedule to do something as major and as significant as that, there was concern that intelligence was being pushed forward as the justification for war."

He confirms this later, citing crones in the Bush administration.

"At the time there were a lot of concerns that it was being politicized by certain individuals within the administration that wanted to get that intelligence base that would justify going forward with the war."

Who?

"Some of the neocons that you refer to were determined to make sure that the intelligence was going to support the ultimate decision. Looking back on it now, as we put pieces together, it probably is apparent to some, including Paul, that it was much more politicized than in fact we realized. It wasn't a secret, though, at that time that there were certain people who were strong advocates of going to war, almost irrespective of what the intelligence was."

The administration just had to go through the CIA in order to do this, but in doing so, put aside the obvious and went on with their war on Iraq. As stated before by myself, Bush planned this war before 9-11, and all this for the sake of oil and more global economic and political hegemony, as the American administration has been doing for the past 50 years. Who knows what other lies we will unearth as this farcical "war on terror" progresses? Ahmadinejad's non-existent intentions of building nukes, perhaps? We just can't wait and see, but we have to call for action, and protest the injustices that the neocons have wrought unto this world ever since they took power.

Saracen

Inconvenient Truths and Moral Obligations

2006-06-26T20:10:00.000-07:00

Some truths are amoral. One doesn't immediately have a specific moral obligation once one knows the truth of water's molecular structure. Other truths are always already related to some moral decision. For example, the recognition of a person as a human being brings with it some moral obligations that don't follow from other objects. These truths are both descriptive (e.g. "that's a human being") and prescriptive (i.e. "I should kill that because it's a human being.") Such truths are both 'is' and 'ought' statements, "that is a human" and "I ought to treat them humanely". I think this is the logic active in Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative. I also believe that this same logic applies to the global warming debate.

Before diving into global warming specifically, I'd like to distinguish the relation between truth and moral obligation from the Is-ought problem. Here is a quote by Hume on this problem:

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have
always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary
ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God,
or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am
surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of
propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not,
expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it
shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason
should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new
relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different
from it

Hume's careful reasoning reminds us that we cannot directly go from an observed truth to a moral obligation. There must be something else that forms the 'ought' in relation to the 'is' and that something is a value. Without some system of moral values we cannot make the move from a truth to a moral obligation. I believe the moral values relevant to global warming are the simplest and most universal values possible. These are values placed on human life itself. I speak of them in the plural because it's not simple bare survival. Beyond survival there is a value on the quality of life. I don't want to see millions pour into refugee camps around the globe in the wake of the effects of global climate change. These people deserve more than waiting in a camp for enough sustenance to survive for a little while longer. Human life should be more than that.

I watched Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth this past weeked. I was hesistant to go. I shy away from alarmism, I think it impedes action rather than mandating it. Despite my worries about alarmism, I think Gore did a pretty good job not falling into alarmism despite his passion for the topic. I worry that Gore's prominence might obfuscate the dangers of global warming. The US media, specifically it's right-wing variety, tend to latch onto arguments over people not issues. Gore as celebrity is better suited for the palette to Americans than finding out our way of life is endangering the future of the planet.

Although I hope that Gore himself isn't eclipsed by dangers of global warming, I must say that I was impressed by him as an activist. It was a moving portrait that was occasionally distracting, sometimes touching, and sometimes unintentionally funny. I came away with a new respect for a Gore and a reinvigorated disrespect for many politicians. The fact that Gore presented global warming data to congress IN THE 80s should remind anyway of the type of kick in the pants American politics needs in order to change.

But Gore is the subtext, the real point is that global warming is real. This truth pretty much assumes we have a moral obligation to do something about it. I'm not sure what kind of values could sustain continued ignorance on this important issue. But apparently these values exist somewhere because nutheads continue to deny this problem. I think that is two moral failues, the failure to grasp an morally significant fact and the failure to do anything about it.

American corporatism and corruption; the new global hegemony.

2006-06-19T17:18:00.000-07:00

We have entered a new phase of the American experience…and so has the rest of the civilized world as a consequence…the new American imperialist corporatism.

It permeates every facet of American life, and it’s end goals are to make the rest of the world’s populaces and states follow suit. Its highest priority is profit, and it is even mandated to produce such by American corporate law, under the pretense of “protecting” the American investor. Ends’ justifying the means is the new value, and higher productivity and lower expenses are the rule of the day. It’s aims are to make pawns of the citizens who feed it through the forced confiscation of their property through tax collection (excepting those at the very top of the economic ladder of course with the new tax cuts for the rich) and to make further pawns of the nations and populaces of the world which hold natural resources the corporatism depends on for it’s very survival and hegemony, under military or economic threat, while labeling those who do not lockstep in line with these agendas “terrorists” or “rogue states”. What this has created is a new Rome of America, an aggressive state bent on pre-emptive warfare and interventionism’s, to serve it’s own purposes of profit and corporate/political supremacy internationally, while suppressing popular sentiment at home, including in the now de-regulated and monopolized media, and the stagnation of real personal incomes and the middle class, including weakening of labor unions, outsourcing of entire industries to third world, economically-friendly despotic regimes, and the purposeful introduction of illegal immigration without limits or enforced laws in order to drive down or eliminate completely the labor costs, including all related and costly employment benefits such as health care and retirement packages, of those at the very bottom of the economic domestic food chain.

This supreme corporatism manifests in itself the greatest threat to both domestic and international security, peace and common prosperity, for it threatens these basic human rights if they are found not to be politically or economically expedient in the course of corporate America’s expansion, or are found to merely get in the way of it’s efficiently being carried out. Dealing with foreign regimes whose ideologies and practices do not adhere to traditional American values and ethics matters not, as long as the business arrangement is found to be mutually lucrative and the benefits of the relationship seen as conducive to further corporate enrichment, the associated parties will “lobby” congress with their massive influxes of capital to convince influential politicos and governmental beaurocracies that the relationship is in no way harmful to American foreign policy and only serves to “create” jobs and wealth, thereby somehow benefiting the country while in reality it does everything in the opposite, including the wholesale transferring of jobs to those countries whose environmental and worker’s rights policies and enforcement are severely lacking, leaving thousands of Americans unemployed or looking for alternative career paths, while flooding the nation with sub-standard commercial and consumer goods, banking the proceeds in tax-haven offshore accounts, and actually serving to further enrich and support these foreign regimes in the name of globalism and the “free market”. And the preceding only touches the proverbial tip of the iceberg, in regards to the realities of the consequences faced by such actions and policies by not only the American, but worldwide public at large.

This new corporatism, or “New World Order” as Bush Senior was partial to calling it, threatens the 99% of the worldwide populace which is not privy to it’s benefits simply because it does not owe or give it’s allegiance to any one nation, ideology or code of ethics. It is now global in sphere, and it’s sole purpose for being is the furtherance of the goal of ever-higher profit margins. The welfare state-like security most western nations have enjoyed for the last 60 years, in stark contrast to the failure of the socialist experiment in Russia’s corrupted and inept Soviet Union, is now itself at risk of being eaten alive from within by the corporatism of it’s own making. The Soviet Union fell rather due to the inflexibility of it’s central planning and the disenfranchisement of private citizens and investment creating no incentive to compete or progress other than to make the party apparatchiks feel pandered to. The new worldwide corporatism taking power in the global economics spheres is structured very similarly, albeit more able to adapt to and sustain periods of market depression. It practices the same repression of individual thought or action, it suppresses popularly distributed and independent media and information, and it’s sole over-riding agenda is self preservation at any cost, including even to it’s own subjects toiling under them (since they are seen as expendable and mere “collateral resources” which can be replaced easily as long as employment opportunities are kept low and cost of living increases mandate people to subjugate themselves in order to survive), and even to the national security of their mother nations.

This has bred a worldwide and long foreseen rebellion against this global, authoritarian and invasive new face of power, in the forms of “insurgencies” and other political violence, by those who see their religions, sovereignties, and even races threatened catastrophically and permanently by this calculating and relentless corporatism promoted and supported chiefly by the United States. They see a new era of imperialist colonialism, attempting again to rob their own land’s resources in exchange for bribed regimes and military dominance, attempting to make their religions and cultures impertinent, attempting to take away even their right to self-determination and rule.

These same practices and principles, all the while, have been also thrust upon the American people as well, and worse, by the very corporate concerns which the country and it’s citizenry gave rise to. They see their employment opportunities dwindling by the day, their labor unions decimated and made inconsequential, are continued to be forced to live without the promise of health care availability regardless of ability to pay when the vast majority of the rest of the world’s major powers provide it, even to the extreme detriment of the ability of American industry to compete (though this doesn’t concern the globalists one bit, and actually falls in line with their strategic economic planning) and they see no enforcements of immigration law and nothing but hot air coming from a supposed conservative administration which in reality wishes to greet this low-paid and un-represented labor force with open arms. They see traditionally steady, solid employment with retirements and health care disappearing at break-neck rates, and they even see their own regime wishing to “privatize” their own self-funded social security which is yet another attack upon the reforms introduced under the New Deal introduced by Roosevelt in response to the massive sufferings caused by the Great Depression, brought about by the same concerns and market forces which are attempting to colonize the entire planet for themselves today. The welfare of the indigenous peoples who survive under this corporate regime are of no concern to the elites who control it…they are merely seen as a never-ending source of revenue with which to pursue their globalist ambitions, and a (hopefully eventually) cheap labor pool from which to select those who are willing to work for less and less pay for the privilege of base survival, while being terrorized domestically by the constant stream of rhetoric about a “war on terrorism” and other distractions meant to further the profit base and keep the populace at home well-intimidated and obedient….creating a police state for those dissidents who oppose the order. This can be evidenced in the on going “drug war” being waged by the American corporatocracy against it’s own citizenry…a war against a large portion of the regime’s own constituency. It is perpetrated despite the fact it is blatantly un-constitutional, it’s “enemy” is it’s own population, and it utilizes military tactics and equipment against it’s domestic population to fight it, in direct contravention to laws regarding military deployment against the citizenry itself for any reason such as Posse Comatatus.

All the stops are pulled and it is now an age of free reign for the corporations and the government it buys, a second coming of the Gilded Age of robber barons, however on a much more intricately planned and planet-encompassing scale. The dwindling resources of a trapped and deluded middle class show the extent to which these agendas are successfully employed without the worry of popular internal rebellion, as the complacency and sloth of the working classes can be counted on, for the immediate future anyway, through information suppression and propaganda, control of the population through fear and militarized tactics, the mass-scale building of more and bigger public and private prisons with which to lock away those who do dare to resist the further erosion of liberties and freedom (making America, per-capita, the single largest incarcerator of it’s own citizenry among any other industrialized nation) and, as the 18th century historian Alexander Tyler wrote in his “The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic;

“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence; from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, and finally from dependence back into bondage.”

The political system in America, particularly what I like to call the Two Party Fraud System, serves to propagate and maintain this bondage and control, while on the outside appearing to actually offer the People and electorate any real choice in leadership and direction. They pander to their bases and financial supporters through the sensationalizing of fringe and inconsequential “issues” such as gay marriage, abortion, flag burning, and domestic crimes against wealthy white children, while the pressing and disturbing issues of the day are treated the same by both sides of the aisle. This is evidenced as well in the recent votes in both House and Senate on the refusal to place any concrete timetable for an Iraqi pullout. Dems and Repubs both vote along the same party lines, regardless of the letter after their names. Unwavering and unconditional financial and military support for Israel is one example of this collusion. The American public is fooled into believing their votes actually count, and that their votes go towards politicians and beaurocrats who make any difference in the political process. The real issues, like health care and the Iraqi occupation, are treated and considered the same across the board by them all, and no real change or progress is initiated unless and until the ruling class deems it necessary to do so…all in contrast to and despite popular opinion. This subjugation of democracy is paramount and of vital importance towards maintaining the corporate status quo and control of the economies and nations it wishes to have submit to it, it is important for the protection of corporate interests from outside antagonists or competitors, including domestic ones, in violation of any standard norms of the ideals behind a democratic republic or any constitutional considerations. Modern corporatism is now also the standard-bearer of national ethics and business practice, and since it’s motto seems to be “ends justify the means” we have been left with a rash of corporate scandals (lobbyist corruption, Enron, etc) of the likes and magnitudes not seen since, again, the Gilded Age. History repeating itself, or corporatism rearing it’s ugly heads once again within the halls of power and jurisprudence, attempting again to buy the country, it’s land and resources, and it’s elected officials, in order to dictate it’s own brand of foreign and domestic policy, namely, whatever benefits the elites and power broker’s bottom lines.

This is not any more evident than in the case of American Middle East policy. The United States has taken the high road down the same imperialist path of Britain in the last 100 years or so, including all of the same interventions, militarily, economically and politically. Iraq is nothing more than an attempt at colonization of a resource-rich state. Its new government is nothing short of a puppet regime, made up mostly of wealthy and well-connected former expatriates, most of whom have never touched the ground in Iraq in years. Chalabi, DC’s former sweetheart and first pick to run Iraq’s new regime, is a perfect example of the corruption and self-interests of the corporate take-over of Iraq. The known corruption already surrounding Chalabi was known exquisitely well before the Iraqi invasion and occupation, yet he remained and, incredibly, still remains a key figure in the new government. His purported ties to the New American Century project, and various American officials also within, including Wolfowitz and Perle, show an underlying agenda that has nothing much to do with the Iraqi nation and it’s sovereignty itself and rather more concerned with the interests of his political masters in Washington and Houston. It should be no surprise then that he was also one of the loudest expatriate voices before the invasion concerning Saddam’s purported WMD programs, puffing up the threat and claiming intimate knowledge when none actually existed, and now proven false. His “warnings” to the Pentagon were merely rehearsed war rhetoric, and he served as a credible if very little-known figure to the American public, who were also primed by a constant barrage of state propaganda designed to lead the nation to war no matter what. All this, despite the fact he was wanted in Jordan for nothing short of bank fraud. This clearly shows DC had no intentions of “spreading freedom and democracy” in Iraq and every intention of placing their own loyal oil company puppets in charge in order to secure the resources of that country and maintain oil hegemony (which can also be shown in the way Chalabi was made oil minister even after the allegations of corruption and his outing with the CIA). This can also be seen in the way most Sunni’s were disenfranchised by the coalition government, including the disbandment of the Iraqi military forces without alternative employment or participation of political affairs. Anyone having been seen as former beneficiaries of Saddam’s regime were ousted and left to fend for themselves in a scenario of over 50% unemployment, little to no electrical generation or sanitary systems left intact, and widespread disillusionment with the new occupiers. The initial US invasion forces had a top, ordered priority to secure the oil fields first, above all else, as weapons depots were looted by an already-growing “insurgency” and the makings of a civil war were everywhere. To justify the continued occupation, an “enemy” needed to be created, and one was through the “insurgency”, which was conveniently branded as based in terror and associated with the likes of al-Quaeda, though in reality the “insurgency” really was and continues to be the Iraqi citizenry themselves, hoping to win their sovereignty and independence back, along with their resources and self-determination. These agendas are not seen as friendly to the oil cabals and are therefore propagandized as “evil” and worthy only of extermination at any cost, even including the killing and maiming of outright civilians, as long as the “enemy” is attacked ruthlessly, sold to the American public as “protecting our freedoms” when no such threat to America’s security or “freedom” ever existed. To top it off, we were sold a bill of goods which basically claimed the Iraqi war would pay for itself (through, of course, the looted resources of the Iraqi people) though this has naturally never materialized itself either as American oil companies continue to price gouge at the pumps, even using a domestic natural disaster as one excuse for such, though these price gougings went into effect well before Hurricane Katrina hit, and even though the related damage to refining operations in the region were repaired quickly and never actually contributed to any feasible oil shortage crisis…leading congress itself to haul the top CEO’s of such corporations to testify, though, incredibly, the GOP controlled House refused to place them under any oaths for their testimonies, freeing them to propagandize and lie to their heart’s content to the American people. Hence, we are told over and over that the actions and foreign/domestic policies of the oil cabals and the government they have bought are all for our eventual and ultimate own good, while the reality is that the only thing that ever really changes in the day to day lives of common Americans are ever-higher gas prices and costs of living as their real wages stagnate or go down. The American public has been repeatedly sold a large bill of goods by their Dear Leaders, and have apparently fallen for it time and again too thanks too the non-stop official war propaganda coming out of DC, and the false patriotism it inspires among the ill-informed, as our media and information outlets are de-regulated and monopolized, with the blessings of an FCC head whose daddy just happens to be one of the biggest players in the Iraqi occupation and it’s phony rhetoric for going to war, including participating in and playing a key role in many other past repressions, corruptions and un-truths, such as Iran/Contra all the way back to the purposeful suppression of atrocity reports by American forces in Vietnam …Colin Powell and Son.

The on-going and never-ending conflicts between the Palestinians and Israelis is another grand issue in this corporatocracy we call a democratic republic. On close examination, there really is no justification for the continued and unconditional US support for Israel, even in the face of the fact Israel is and has been the target of more UN resolutions, and the violations of such, than any other nation on earth. A nation which possesses a very large and well-known “WMD” stockpile, while still to this day refusing to acknowledge even it’s existence, much less agreeing to international inspections of such. Yet, as can be conveniently seen, Israel and the United States are the loudest demanders of inspections and non-proliferation among any other nation other than themselves, especially those who do not play along with their hegemonistic ambitions such as Iran. The threat of a new Sino-Russian cooperation, along with Iran and Saudi Arabia’s perceived threats of abandoning the non-gold standard US dollar as the major oil trading currency in favor of the better-financed and backed Euro, also plays a major role in DC’s decisions at attempts to further colonize the region and demonize any state which allies itself with such alternative trading policies, in particular those that possess the resources for which this country consumes at insane levels while our domestic vehicle makers continue to push more large SUV’s and resist any change to domestic fuel consumption standards. In other words, it’s all about profits, and the environment, sound foreign policies, and our own world image be damned. To make matters worse, if possible, American business philosophy has for years been almost solely pre-occupied with short-term profits, as opposed to, say, the Japanese and other Asian nations who look to the long term and calculate the associated consequences of long-term investment and planning. Case in point; upon the purchasing of a traditional American landmark, the Rockefeller center in New York, the Japanese interest that purchased it, upon asked why, when all other American interests ran away from the prospect due to the calculation that no profits would be realized from the possession of the tower for well over 50 years after the date of the transaction, simply replied, “then we will se a profit in 50 years”. This sort of long-range planning and careful examination of consequences does not apply to American business philosophy, where again, the ends justify the means and short-term large profits are the norm and desire. The point being, this “business philosophy” can be evidenced in no better place that today’s Iraq, where the US military invasion and subsequent occupation were so poorly planned for the long term that it has become a literal quagmire now, if not teetering on the brink of a civil war, while electricity and water and other basic services are still not near at their pre-war levels under Saddam, though the seaports and oil wells were immediately repaired, retro-fitted and made fully operational so that large amounts of looted Iraqi oil may flow freely from them as the tankers sail in and out on a daily basis while the common Iraqi is made to endure hardships and deprivations ordinary Americans would outright revolt over. Yet we are told that “staying the course” is our only option, across both political aisles, and we are asked to remain patient, while Iraqi civilians are slaughtered en-masse in a re-run of the Vietnam My-Lai episodes and the Iraqi people themselves are now demonized and reviled as “insurgents” if they don’t happen to think the game being played there, at their expense, is beneficial to their country and countrymen. On a side note, the Nazi general Stroop, in his now infamous report back to Berlin regarding the Nazi assault on the resistance fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto, also labeled those Jews and others desperately fighting the brutal Nazi occupation as “insurgents” and “criminals”. This is not to make any correlations between America and the former German Nazi regime, it is to show that the same propaganda tactics are used and displayed in both scenarios, and to the benefit of the occupying state, for reasons of justifying an illegal occupation and violent subjugation of the indigenous peoples, and most glaringly, to justify any atrocities or unnecessary killings or evictions of said peoples in the name of “fighting terrorism” or “criminal elements” within that occupied society. The DC/UK/oil cabal corporatocracy can be shown then to operate well within it’s own conjured double standards, where terrorism, economic or military, perpetrated by THEM is only “spreading democracy” and “fighting terrorism and rogue states”, when the same basic terrorism perpetrated by those who oppose the imperialist aims of the corporatocracy for the sake of independence and sovereignty is called “evil” and worthy of nothing short of violent, unquestioning military dominance within a doctrine of self-justified and self-serving pre-emptive warfare and interventionism.

The Palestinian people have been similarly demonized and dispossessed. The Zionist media constantly portrays the entire society as one bent on senseless political violence, and paints the average Palestinian freedom fighter as some kind of evil, brainwashed, over-indoctrinated religious zealot who revels in killing children and women with bombs and surprise attacks without remorse. They are shown to be politically splintered and teetering themselves now on the verge of internal fracturing of unity and even civil war. What is never touched on or seriously analyzed are the facts that the Palestinian people were forced into such a scenario through the historical and repeated confiscation of their own lands to make way for another race of people they previously had no part in victimizing, yet were made to pay for it anyway in ’48 with their lands, autonomy and blood. They’re continued fight against this treachery is labeled as “terrorism” and “factional”. It can be seen historically that whenever a western colonizing power occupies or otherwise severely intervenes in the political process of foreign nations for selfish ends, such as the widespread and unabated British colonization’s of Africa which left many suddenly independent nations after the eventual British pull-outs in tatters economically and politically, to the point of civil wars, internal strife, poverty, and, yes, the eventual creation “terrorism” bases in the subsequent power vacuums. It left entire populations stranded without protections, opened the doors wide to corruptions and violent, repressive new regimes to take hold, and made mockeries of the internal human rights condition within. British South Africa was a perfect example of the total subjugation of an indigenous population repressed by an occupying overlord, even in the face of worldwide condemnation (Apartheid). It is little wonder that American Vice President Cheney was on the record in those days as being against Nelson Mandela’s freedom from political imprisonment.
In summary, the new American global corporatocracy that is well entrenched in power now can clearly be seen as the biggest threat to global security the world has ever faced. It’s repression and crimes against it’s own people and constitution are merely the catalyst for it’s final ambitions for global control and hegemony. It’s actions and agendas affect the entire world’s populations, it infects the international business transactions of every major bank and financial institution and uses it’s muscle to persuade or outright force sovereign independent interests to submit to it’s interests, economically and if necessary militarily. The age of the feared “military-industrial complex” Eisenhower warned us about is now here in all of it’s might and glory, and it cares not what popular opinion, internal and international, or even voting results, have to express. The profit margin is king and lord, and is the driving, even sole force for every action taken by it. It preys on the basic human traits for corruption and self-interest, thereby propagating and even creating on it’s own a fiery brand of false patriotism, convincing the very people it rapes economically everyday that it’s agendas are truly concerned with the welfare of “We the People”. The question today is not whether it exists or has taken full control of our government, policies and even daily lives. The question now should be, how can it be regulated, how can it be checked and balanced, how can it be directed by those whose true place is to do so…We the People…instead of an elite corporate cabal and their hordes of paid-off minions doing their biddings. The world at large, truly, all of the people inhabiting this planet, and our future generations, depend on our rising up to challenge their power and manipulations. If we don’t do it now, we will only have ourselves to thank later when we find ourselves, the American people, colonized and subjugated and labeled “insurgents” as well, in the face of the new world corporate system better known as Friendly Fascism, or the new corporate world dictatorship.

Sino-Russian Alliance Converged On Iran

2006-06-17T08:22:00.000-07:00

The tough talk these days is on the pressure that Iran has yet to succumb to, and how it's going to affect its relations with Russia and China, considering the continuous pressure from the West. Recently, Iran held several talks with its two allies, and has forged new pacts with leaders like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who encouraged Ahmadinejad to pursue nuclear power; this, of course, is akin to Chavez's short-living record for being anti-rightwing and anti-imperialist.

Both allies have interests in Iran's oil assets, as well as products that could be of use to Iran economically and militarilty. Over the past few months, Russia has been selling arms to Iran, including long-range missiles that supposedly can carry warheads containing nuclear material. Such transactions are necessary for Russia: Russia has been stripped of cash and needs to fix the deficits. This is shown by Russia's growing relations with its communist neighbor, China. During 2004, diplomats from both nations exchanged meetings with each other, and have set deals that would improve the economy of Russia and aid the infrastructure of China.

Jephraim Gundzik of the Asia Times outlines this strategic relation.

Growing ties between Moscow and Beijing in the past 18 months is an important geopolitical event that has gone practically unnoticed. China's premier, Wen Jiabao, visited Russia in September 2004. In October 2004, President Vladimir Putin visited China. During the October meeting, both China and Russia declared that Sino-Russian relations had reached "unparalleled heights". In addition to settling long-standing border issues, Moscow and Beijing agreed to hold joint military exercises in 2005. This marks the first large-scale military exercises between Russia and China since 1958.

Russia was by itself cash-strapped due to economic depressions in the nation itself. The arms trade also continued, and this of course worried superpowers like the U.S. However, it had two assets which it could make use of and sell to China, among them oil and electricity, which was outlined by Gundzik:

In the past five years, non-military trade between Russia and China has increased at an average annual rate of nearly 20%. Moscow and Beijing have targeted non-military trade to reach $60 billion by 2010, from $20 billion in 2004. One of the key components of commercial trade is Russian energy exports to China.

According to Gundzik, Russia's subsequent oil pipeline, on par with the energy relations between the two countries, would terminate at a port that is used as a primary trading point between Russia and Japan, a country that has precarious ties with China. Although a crossroad-like spur that would split the oil coming from Siberia to both China and Nakhodka, the port that is part of the trading route between Russia and Japan.

However, the company on the receiving end, state-owned CNPC (Chinese National Petrol Corporation), in its agreements with Russian gas giant Gazprom, has several ventures in Iranian energy and oil assets. These of course have come with the price of selling arms to Iran, thus turning the rope between China and Russia into a triangular axis with China, Russia and Iran involved. Such an alliance could "rival" the imperialist Anglo-American Coalition, with little Israel in the middle. Speaking of this Coalition, which has worked endlessly to sanction countries that have stood up to its imperialist aims, has placed a sanction on Iran and Libya, a country that has already seceded to Coalition aims and ceased all productions of nuclear weapons; China has invested much, as Gundzik writes,

This huge deal also enlists substantial Chinese investment in Iranian energy exploration, drilling and production as well as in petrochemical and natural gas infrastructure. Total Chinese investment targeted toward Iran's energy sector could exceed a further $100 billion over 25 years. At the end of 2004, China became Iran's top oil export market. Apart from the oil and natural gas delivery contracts, the massive investment being undertaken by China's state-owned oil companies in Iran's energy sector contravenes the US Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. This law penalizes foreign companies for investing more than $20 million in either Libya or Iran.

Gundzik raises the hypocrisy of the Coalition in sanctioning whosoever it wants, and has thus placed control on global investment relations. This could prove harmful for individual assets, considering the Coalition's interests in the region (damn interests, always get in the way of what other sovereign nations want to do between themselves). Oh, well... However, it seems that such relations were going on for quite a while. Gundzik writes on,

Side-stepping US laws is nothing new for China. Beijing, as well as Moscow, has supplied Tehran with advanced missiles and missile technology since the mid-1980s. In addition to anti-ship missiles like the Silkworm, China has sold Iran surface-to-surface cruise missiles and, along with Russia, assisted in the development of Iran's long-range ballistic missiles. This assistance included the development of Iran's Shihab-3 and Shihab-4 missiles, with a range of about 2,000 kilometers. Iran is also reportedly developing missiles with ranges approaching 3,000 kilometers.

During the mid-1980's, a war was going on between Iran and Iraq, ruled by Saddam Hussein, who was supplied with non-conventional weapons from the United States of America; such weapons included cyanide and other chemical and biological nightmares. However, Iran had the frontal edge, shatterring all offenses from its Arab neighbor.

The Iran issue was actually brought about in 2004, after the conquest of Iraq by the Coalition; it was already proven that the Coalition wanted to root out Iraq prior to 9-11. However,

In late 2004, former secretary of state Colin Powell asserted that Iran was working to adapt its long-range ballistic missiles to carry nuclear warheads. China was also believed to be producing several new types of guided anti-ship missiles for Iran in 2004. China's and Russia's sales of missiles and missile technology as well as missile development assistance contravenes the US-Iran non-proliferation act of 2000. This act specifically states that sanctions will be "imposed on countries whose companies provide assistance to Iran in its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction and missile delivery systems".

While it can be argued that arms sales to Iran have gone up over the past two decades, it is also found that the U.S. was actively inciting tensions in the region, supplying both Pakistan and India with weapons of all sorts, especially the latter. According to the Federation of American Scientists, India's nuclear programme is by far more established than that of Iran, which has done naught in aggressiveness. India, meanwhile, has been actively taking part in anti-Muslim violence within its own borders, considering the Hindu majority; tensions between it and Pakistan were also simmering. But why the U.S. is more interested in Iran remains a question: when Iran doesn't interest the U.S., the U.S. does its worst to incite more opposition to the Shi'ite country. Such double-standards have always been prevalent in U.S. politics, and is nothing new... so, no big surprises here, friends.

The U.S. has been also mounting the same pressure on Russia and China for dealing with Iran, as Gundzik continues to write,

In the past several years a number of Chinese and Russian companies have faced US sanctions for selling missiles and missile technology to Iran. Rather than slowing or stopping such sales, the pace of missile acquisition and development in Iran has accelerated. Like relations between China and Russia and China and Iran, Russia's relations with Iran have also advanced considerably in the past 18 months. In addition to increased investment in Iran by Russia and burgeoning arms trade between the two countries, Russia has been heavily involved in Iran's nascent nuclear energy industry.

Iran has yet to acquire 55,000 centrifuges should it acquire nukes and build them for any aggressive nukes. What is strange is that while North Korea already has nuclear capability, and with anti-U.S. propaganda more prevalent in its media, I don't see why such mistranslations on part of Ahmadinejad's speeches are taken too seriously than dismissed as rhetoric, while Kim Jung Il's rants on the U.S. are taken as empty rhetoric and not the other way around! Strange, don't you think?

After much wrangling and repeated US intervention, Russia and Iran finally signed, in February, a deal clearing the way for the shipment of Russian nuclear fuel to Iran's nuclear power plant at Bushehr. Washington's primary concern about Bushehr is the intended use of the plant's spent nuclear fuel. This fuel can be discarded, reprocessed, or used in the manufacture of weapons-grade plutonium. In an effort to assure Washington that the last of these three possibilities will not come to pass, Moscow has promised that all the spent fuel from Bushehr will be returned to Russia.

However, Iran's dwindling economy, on part of dropping gas prices et al., will not give way to sending any such fuel back to Russia. Iran could make more use of it being reprocessed on its home soil for further nuclear energy consumption and thus exporting of such energy to its allies and other parts of Iran. But it ticks me off to no end that the U.S. has yet again wrapped another nation around a leash.

On the bright side, all three countries have similar foreign policy outlooks and have also supported each other on many of their foreign policy ventures. The most significant of these was the Sino-Russian support for Iran in opposing U.N. action against it. The possibilities for such a 3-way alliance are endless, with the ultimate goal being a rival network of superpowers to counter the unilateral aims of the Western Coalition and its thirst for supremacy.

Beijing has echoed Moscow's opposition to UN action against Iran. After concluding the historic gas and oil deal between China and Iran in October 2004, China's Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing announced that China would not support UN Security Council action against Iran's nuclear energy program. Opposition in Moscow and Beijing to UN action against Iran is significant because both countries hold UN Security Council veto power.

The endorsement of Tehran's nuclear energy program by Moscow and Beijing reveals the primary impetus behind the China-Iran-Russia axis -- to counter US unilateralism and global hegemonic intentions. For Beijing and Moscow, this means minimizing US influence in Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East. For the regime in Tehran, keeping the US at bay is a matter of survival.

This is pretty much the buzz surrounding this whole alliance. However, many people consider it an alliance of business intentions more than military and energy relations. When one shoves aside all "Iran is evil", "Russian Magog", and "Chinese killer commies" propaganda, one can see that the Coalition has, over the past few months, sanctioned and lobbied against the forging of this new alliance.

The rise of this new alliance has been condemned and attacked by many in the rightwing alliance of the U.S., the U.K. and Israel. Iran's escape from isolation has sadly not met a good welcome. However, people like Chavez and officials from Hamas have condoned Iran's independent ventures into acquiring assets that are undesirable to the selfish aims of the Coalition. Rumsfeld, an old coot unworthy of any title, has already lambasted this alliance, more like he already lambasted Chavez as being like Hitler, an asinine comparison that only rightwingers these days could come up with.

But what do I think of this alliance? Personally, as a liberal and libertarian, I believe that countries should engage no further than free trade and so forth. Such agreements were already placed by the three nations presented here. However, I am a strict believer in non-aggression, and thus can't bear the fact that any military alliance should be made; I'd like to see the Coalition disintegrate first, though. However, when it comes to the long term, the U.S. or Israel might goad Iran into attacking or attack it head-on. China and Russia will see their interests threatened, and more likely jump in and defend their beleaguered ally. Considering the strength that the Iranian Army has now that it has acquired weapons and training, I'm pretty sure that the Iranian regime could stand its own ground. Just to make this clear: I am no fan of Iran's regime, nor am I a fan of the regimes of Russia or China. Russia has a record of atrocity against Muslim separatists living in Chechnya, and Iran's support for Russia's onslaught doesn't make me like Iran any further. China's regime is aggressing on Taiwan, but when it comes to the people of these nations, I have nothing against them... nothing at all. I just hope that this alliance remains, the Coalition backs off, and God forbid any sort of aggression coming from either side.

Saracen

The guns of July or August?

2006-06-15T11:28:00.000-07:00

Although it may seem that tensions in the Middle East have somewhat cooled after the Israeli-Palestinian incident where several civilians were killed, the bigger picture still lies with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Recently, Iran has held talks with China and Russia, apparently staunch allies of the nation, to make sure Iran will not get sanctions after being offered the "Western package of incentives". More than that, is there military support being offered as well in case of an American standoff with Iran?

Over the past several months there have been large sales (in the hundreds of millions of dollars) of arms (missiles, bombers, etc.) from Russian arms dealers to Iran. Whether the Chinese have been involved with this, remains to be seen.

Is diplomacy really dead? With N. Korea testing long range missiles, it only adds to the unease of the situation. One can only hope that nothing esclates into a full-out war, but the months of July and August seem extremely crucial:

G. Bush enters the last few months of his horrendous time in office and is attempting to secure Iraq. But the Taliban in Afghanistan is back stirring up trouble (sources say it's coming straight from Pakistan, although the American puppet Musharraf denie s it...). If a strike happens on Iran, you can sure bet Israel will be the first target. Even the U.S. troops in Iraq become vulnerable. This could engage Syria into battle, and God only knows what N.Korea, Russia, and China will do then.

Can cooler heads prevail in the packed summer heat? Only time will tell.

Navras

Om shanti shanti om.

Why Harper and Myself are Idiots

2006-06-12T00:43:00.000-07:00

As the Canadian government rapidly dismantles Kyoto commitments--see here for the latest example, I'm kicking myself for thinking the Conservatives couldn't do very much because of their minority position. I of course forgot that they can very easily gut all programs without actually pulling out if the treaty.

How very stupid of me.

Will this come to a head? Do Canadians really care? I can't shake the feeling that Canadians talk a very good environmental game (prior to Harper) but your average voter doesn't care very much about global warming. Hands up anyone who thinks Kyoto will significantly impact the next election. Anyone?

Terror in Canada? Look past the lies...

2006-06-11T14:15:00.000-07:00

Recently you may have all heard about the 17 arrests made in the GTA region in Canada. 'Homegrown' terrorists...

With allegations of blowing up the government buildings. Or beheading the PM.

Come on people...these were 17 individuals, and yes, they were Muslims, who were just speaking out against their government. About the role Canada was playing in Afghanistan. They were against it.

Apparently they had been on watch by RCMP and CSIS for 3 years. And they just got tired and decided to book them.

One is a gardner...that's why he had ammonium nitrate.

And the cell phone detonator...was a high school project by one of the gentlemen accused.

It seems these days that speaking out against your government and voicing your opinion makes you a criminal.

Until real proof is shown of criminal activity, then maybe these men should be put in the slammer. For now, they're innocent just like you and me.

Four Fundamentalisms

2006-06-05T17:33:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading a fascinating article over at counterpunch, The Four Fundamentalisms by Robert Jensen.

The final paragraph in the introduction section of this article drew my attention:

Opposing the war-of-the-moment -- and going beyond that to challenge the whole imperial project -- is important. But also important is the work of thinking through the nature of the larger forces that leave us in this grief-stricken position. We need to go beyond Bush. We should recognize the seriousness of the threat that this particular gang of thieves and thugs poses and resist their policies, but not mistake them for the core of the problem.

I especially like the statement "we need to go beyond Bush." This statement is very important. There is a lot of political energy opposing President Bush right now. This energy will be wasted if it is not refocused onto the larger and more significant forces in American politics.

Jensen see the United States in the grips of four fundamentalisms: religious, national, economic, and technological. Jensen defines fundamentalism as:

any intellectual/political/theological position that asserts an absolute certainty in the truth and/or righteousness of a belief system. Such fundamentalism leads to an inclination to want to marginalize, or in some cases eliminate, alternative ways to understand and organize the world.

Jensen contrasts fundamentalism with humility, specifically the type of humility he associates with the Enlightenment.

It's interesting that Jensen combines religious and national fundamentalism. He sees these two as the most important and associates them together. I think this is justified and I would like to see more work done to use Skillen's concept of America's civic religion and it's mobilization as a fundamentalism (more about Skillen here)

The confluence of religion and nationalism in America is apparent in many phenomenon. Religious conservatives might just be the noisiest segment of the US body politic. As I write this the American senate is debating a possible marriage amendent aimed at enshrining anti-gay bigotry in the US constitution. The same sex marriage debate is a perfect example of the confluence between religious fervor and nationalistic zeal. For example, the LDS church has announced in many of its congregations a church wide policy of opposing same sex marriage. Some examples are even more alarming. There are many people whose beliefs in the apocalypse shae their political beliefs, like dominists.

Jensen makes a great objection to nationalism, he call it intellectually and morally bankrupt:

Nationalism poses a threat everywhere but should especially concern us in the United States, where the capacity for destruction in the hands of the most powerful state in the history of the world is exacerbated by a pathological hyper-patriotism that tends to suppress internal criticism and leave many unable to hear critique from outside. In other writing (Chapter 3 of Citizens of the Empire) I have outlined in some detail an argument that patriotism is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Here, let me simply point out that because a nation-state is an abstraction (lines on a map, not a naturally occurring object), assertions of patriotism (defined as love of or loyalty to a nation-state) raise a simple question: To what we are pledging our love and loyalty? How is that abstraction made real? I conclude that all the possible answers are indefensible and that instead of pledging allegiance to a nation, we should acknowledge and celebrate our connections to real people in our lives while also declaring a commitment to universal principles, but reject offering commitment to arbitrary political units that in the modern era have been the vehicle for such barbarism and brutality.

Amen.

Jensen's section on economic fundamentalism (or "market fundamentalism) is wonderful, especially this section:

But I want to highlight the power of this fundamentalism by reminding us of a common acronym: TGIF. Everyone in the United States knows what that means: "Thank God it's Friday." The majority of Americans don't just know what TGIF stands for, they feel it in their bones. That's a way of saying that a majority of Americans do work they generally do not like and do not believe is really worth doing. That's a way of saying that we have an economy in which most people spend at least a third of their lives doing things they don't want to do and don't believe are valuable. We are told this is a way of organizing an economy that is natural.

I was resistant to the idea of a technology fundamentalism because I'm generally in favor of technological innovation. I belief that Jensen is careful to focus this fundamentalism on developing technologies at a speed that matches our ability to manage them safely:

We live now in the uncomfortable position of realizing we have moved too far and too fast, outstripping our capacity to manage safely the world we have created. The answer is not some naïve return to a romanticized past, but a recognition of what we have created and a systematic evaluation of how to step back from our most dangerous missteps.

I think Jensen is right. I believe that we must develop ourselves as ethical and political beings as much if not more than we develop our pratical technologies.

Here are Jensen's suggestion for turns we need to make to overcome these fundamentalisms:

Technologically: We need to stop talking about progress in terms that reflexively glorify faster and more powerful devices, and instead adopt a standard for judging progress based on the real effects on humans and the wider world of which we are a part.

Economically: We need to stop talking about growth in terms of more production and adopt a standard for economic growth and development based on meeting human needs.

Nationally: We need to stop talking about national security and the national interest -- code words for serving the goals of the powerful -- and focus on people's interests in being secure in the basics: food, shelter, education, and communal solidarity.

Religiously: We need to stop trying to pin down God. We can understand God as simply the name we give to that which is beyond our ability to understand, and recognize that the attempt to create rules for how to know God is always a failed project.

This is an interesting article that I believe will be useful in analyzing American politics as well as shaping political action.

Why I Hate Rush Limbaugh

2006-06-05T01:46:00.000-07:00

There are many political commentators out there, and many of them are big names: Noam Chomsky, William Blum, Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews and others. However, one name is well-known here in the MidEast, and when it's heard, it is reviled with absolute disgust. Liberals everywhere detest this name because of the political bullshit that is associated with it.

That name is Rush Limbaugh, known for his rants on all sorts of issues. He's technically a neo-conservative, but that's not what really damns him. What really does is his nature and his commentary. Rush Limbaugh has a reputation as an anti-Arab racist. One of his most famous outbursts was on Abu Ghraib. Kurt Nimmo documented this show, quoting Rush Limbaugh, who loudmouthed,

"I'm talking about people having a good time, these people [CIA agents and MPs at Abu Ghraib], you ever heard of emotional release? You heard of need to blow some steam off? ... This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time."

What strikes me in this is his negligence for human life and human rights. He continues to quote Limbaugh, who argues that Arab prisoners should be humiliated, saying,

"It could well be that the whole purpose here, which has been said, was to humiliate these prisoners. And there's no better way of doing it than what was done. These are Arab males -- what better way to humiliate them than to have a woman have authority over them? What's the purpose here? What's the objective of this? The objective is to soften them up for interrogation later, later on. As I said, there was no horror, there was no terror there was no death, there was no injuries, nothing."

Nimmo rebuts with,

Never mind that people were killed -- and photographed by Limbaugh's centerfold, Spec. Sabrina D. Harman. The point Rush is making is that Arabs are untermenschen, sub-humans, and they do not experience horror and injury the same way Americans do. It's okay to saddle up a 70 year old Iraqi woman with a harness and ride her around like a donkey because Arabs are immune to terror and abuse.

I think I made my point on how Rush Limbaugh is indeed anti-Arab... he and his fellow neocons, that is. The idea is that such people like Limbaugh tend to join the de-humanization campaign and spew out rhetoric that associates Arabs with terrorists, and thus degrading their human and civilian status. Go back to my long rant on the torture in Iraq. Seriously, such things piss me off. People like Limbaugh are giving America a bad image (not that it doesn't have one already).

Unsurprisingly, his hate-mongering rhetoric, paralleled with the likes of Ann Coulter, Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson (evangelicals who deserve the title "America's Taliban"), still roams over the airwaves in the North American continent. He spoke quite a lot on the UAE port deal issue, which, along with the immigration debate and Hurricane Katrina, brought about the worst of American racism and white Christian neoconservative nationalism... and the whole world saw it with their own eyes. He speaks as if he's got a balloon in his stomach ready to explode with BS. Sure, he may have once said that he only states opinions and that he finds it "surprising" that he "gets attacked". He's always got that "whoooaaaa" kind of attitude that makes you feel sick to the stomach, and his commentary is extremely talkative that the BS filter in your brain fills up before you can say "I love Bush".

What I don't understand is how many Americans deal with him being around. But hey, it's a free country, right? He can talk all he wants, and I have the right to criticize his BS... but anywho...

Lately, though, he was arrested and fined for abusing drugs, specifically pain medication and whatnot. What makes it ironic is that he was a vehement opponent to all sorts of drugs and thus a fanatical supporter of the "war on drugs" that Dubya Bush is carrying out. So, you could say that he typifies governmental double standards. Now, while I am not all for homosexual rights (I am not a supporter nor an opponent), I find it sick that he attacks all sorts of minorities as well on these issues. Am I the only one who wants to punch him up his big, fat head?

Almost every single liberal out there, including myself, felt a bit of relief that the right-wing pundits got his yapper shut up for a while, but I sure do hope he gets the slammer!

Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, David Horowitz, Ann Coulter... YOU'RE ALL NEXT!!!

Saracen

Idiocy

2006-05-29T08:31:00.000-07:00

While searching for a transcript of the Bush-Blair press conference, I found one from a year ago on Whitehouse.gov

Since you are dying to know what I think, here are my impressions:

I honestly skipped most of Bush's opening speech because I didn't think I'd hear anything new. Most of what I did hear was the usual rah-rah stuff that any President would regurgitate - nothing against Bush there in particular, it's just that I'm not all that interested in anything scripted.

Ok, I'll be honest here. I don't have any interest in listening to the lies that Dubya's speechwriters prepare for him. It makes me want to shoot my computer screen and I know that'll only result in extra expenses for me.

So let's skip to the embarrassing Q&A session. The President's comments are in red because I believe that red is the color of Satan. And blood. And the Nazi Party. But don't think I am under an anti-Bush bias here. "Nothing could be further from the truth."

The first reporter came out firing, sort of. She asked:
"Prime Minister Blair has been pushing for wealthy nations to double aid to Africa. With American aid levels among the lowest in the G8 as per portion of national income, and the problems on the continent so dire, why isn't doubling U.S. aid a good idea?"

Bush just smiled as if the reporter was stupid and patiently explained that he'd just told her that he'd tripled aid. But that's not the idiotic part...

"Now, in terms of whether or not the formula that you commented upon are the right way to analyze the United States commitment to her, I don't think it is. I mean, I don't think -- there's a lot of things that aren't counted in our desire to spread compassion."

Thanks for clearing that up, Mr. President. And with hard numbers, too! Apparently our "desire to spread compassion" can't be quantified, so you'll just have to trust us.

Can you give us a quick primer on economics? Thanks in advance...

"When you open up your market to entrepreneurs and small businesses, it helps spread wealth."

Oh crap, where did I put my notebook? This is like gold!

In an amazing display of sheer willpower (or perhaps he was drugged), the President managed to keep a mostly straight face when he said this:
"Nobody wants to give money to a country that's corrupt, where leaders take money and put it in their pocket. No developed nation is going to want to support a government that doesn't take an interest in her people, that doesn't focus on education and health care."

Amen, brother. We don't cotton to corruption around these here parts.

Then Tony picked a BBC reported that he apparently knew intimately....

"PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Okay -- Andy.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Andy is still with you.

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: He is."

I had to rewind here because I wasn't sure if I'd skipped the part of Tony's speech that announced he was married to someone named Andy. Nothing.

Thankfully, good ol' Andy tossed Tony a softball about debt forgiveness. Tony handled it brilliantly - that is to say in a dull plodding English manner that was positively narcoleptic. Actually, it wasn't his delivery so much that I think there are more important things to discuss right at this point in history - and more precisely, I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS, OKAY? There's two minutes I'll never get back.

Steve stepped up with a little more difficult question:

"On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street memo from July 2002 says intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military action. Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?"

Dubya almost broke his neck swinging his head around to look at Tony as if to say "you handle this one." Both smirked while Blair explained that no one knew better what they were discussing in secret than him and that's good enough for you!

After Tony rambled on for a bit - the two of them still smirking because war is SO DAMN FUNNY - George finally found some words. They were sort of in random order, though...

"Well, I -- you know, I read kind of the characterizations of the memo..."

He read the characterizations of the memo? Or rather the kind of characterizations. I'll bet he only reads Reader's Digest Condensed Kind of Books. I mean, who has the time?

"...particularly when they dropped it out in the middle of his race. I'm not sure who "they dropped it out" is, but -- I'm not suggesting that you all dropped it out there. (Laughter.) And somebody said, well, you know, we had made up our mind to go to use military force to deal with Saddam. There's nothing farther from the truth.

My conversation with the Prime Minister was, how could we do this peacefully, what could we do. And this meeting, evidently, that took place in London happened before we even went to the United Nations -- or I went to the United Nations. And so it's -- look, both us of didn't want to use our military. Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."

I like how he ran out of things to say at the bolded part. The whole diatribe sounded like a stoned teenager weaving a story to his parents about his late night out with his bud, Tony. Giving up on the complicated tale he was constructing and just blurting out, "And so it's -- look, both of us didn't want to drive all drunk. Nobody wants to drive home drunk. It's the last option."

He actually said this next:

"The consequences of committing the military are -- are very difficult."

Doh! Let me get my notebook!

"The hardest things I do as the President is to try to comfort families who've lost a loved one in combat."

I was wondering why he was avoiding doing that, now I know. It's hard.

Nick spoke up next:

"You've talked of what you've hoped to do for Africa. Do you regard the phrase "make poverty history" as rhetoric from rock stars? Or do you really believe in your gut that this the year it could happen?

And, Mr. President, if I may, as well, on climate change -- you didn't talk about climate change -- do you believe that climate change is manmade and that you, personally, as the leader of the richest country in the world, have a responsibility to reverse that change?"

To which Dubya replied:
"Let me address your first question. Talk about -- you said, I'm willing to talk about what we're going to do -- I want you to focus on what we have done, for starters. I mean, part of the -- part of this world, we've got a lot of big talkers"

Huh?

"What I like to say is my administration actually does what we say we're going to do -- and we have. When I say we're going to make a commitment to triple aid in Africa, I meant it, and we did. When I said we're going to lead an initiative, an HIV/AIDS initiative, the likes of which the world has never seen before on the continent of Africa, we have done that, and we're following through. And so when I say we're going to do more, I think you can take that to the bank, as we say, because of what we have done. We have taken a leadership role."

OH, I see! No, wait... huh?

"And, by the way, Bono has come to see me. I admire him. He is a man of depth and a great heart who cares deeply about the impoverished folks on the continent of Africa, and I admire his leadership on the issue. And so I do believe -- I don't view -- I can't remember how you characterized the rock stars, but I don't characterize them that way, having met the man"

Despite not remembering how the rock stars were characterized, he knew that whatever it was, he didn't characterize them that way.

I can't remember where I put my bong.

" In terms of climate change, I've always said it's a serious long-term issue that needs to be dealt with. And my administration isn't waiting around to deal with the issue, we're acting."

Acting? What exactly is he saying here? I am acting on global warming, too, I'm driving my car EVERY day and contributing to the greenhouse effect. That's action.

A year has passed and no more climate changes! The administration has taken BOLD steps to reduce greenhouse emissions! Right?

Perhaps by "acting" he meant "play-acting?"

"I don't know if you're aware of this, but we lead the world when it comes to dollars spent, millions of dollars spent on research about climate change."

Why, Mister President? I can't imagine why anyone would want to do all that research on climate change.

"We want to know more about it."

OH! Thanks. But again, why?

"It's easier to solve a problem when you know a lot about it."

HA! This time I had my notepad right in front of me. I captured the pearls of wisdom with pen and paper as they tumbled from his mouth.

"And if you look at the statistics, you'll find the United States has taken the lead on this research."

Huzzah! Pretty soon the United States will know MORE about climate change than anyone! We're winning!

Dubya goes on to explain that he learned a new phrase: "diversifying away from hydrocarbons" by mentioning it several times in case we missed it, and explaining that he "strongly believe[s] that the world needs to share technologies on nucular power" except of course, Iran.

What about biodiesel?
"That is a fuel developed from soybeans. I kind of, in jest, like to travel our country, saying, wouldn't it be wonderful if someday the President sat down and looked at the crop report, and said, man, we've got a lot of soybeans; it means we're less dependent on foreign sources of energy. We're spending money to figure out how best to refine soy into diesel."

At least he's doing something - even if it is only traveling around joking about how someday some future President would admire the soybean crops and spend a lot of money on refining soy into diesel.

Thank God this man isn't actually in charge.

God protect us from those who are.

Could they ever get more racist than this?

2006-05-28T13:19:00.000-07:00

Far rightwing pundits like those in the United States and in Europe, that is... It's just sickening to see immaturity and irrationality overcome logic and reason, and they lash out in such prejudiced notions, ethnocentricising on their backgrounds and their identity in fear of even the slightest changes in demographics of their respective nations.

The words "immigration debate" come into mind.

The same thing is also happening in Palestine, where rightwing Israeli cabinet ministers hailed the prevention of Palestinians living in Israeli territory from seeing their spouses in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but that is a subject of its own in my personal blog.

For now, let's return to our subject. To avoid broad generalizations, there have been others on the American left who have shown the same attitude. South of the border, many alleged illegal immigrants from Mexico have been making their way into the American mainland, in hope for finding new jobs and getting paid... You know, the American Dream, which is in reality just a common man's dream in my honest and humble opinion, and everyone is living it... well, those who could afford it, that is.

Anyways, these illegal immigrants have been subject to all sorts of attacks in the media, even on comedy shows and sitcoms. I tend to notice a racist aura around such media outlets that portray Mexicans in this way. For one, the label "Latinos" was forced right on them. For another, you have the image of a poor, downtrodden Mexican immigrant who's forced into a drug or prostitution underground ring. The same is being done with blacks, who are often portrayed as gangsters and thugs, as well as Arabs, who are portrayed as - ugh - "terrorists".

I know that many people are used to it, even blacks and Mexicans themselves, but I tend to think that such racism in the media is actually becoming a norm in America (correct me if I'm wrong). I was told once by a media mogul that such racist depictions in comedy are just "venues", but agreed that they are in a way unacceptable and denigrating.

Then you have the recent surge of nationalism amongst rightwingers when it comes to things like the immigration debate. What I can't believe is that people actually defend racism! It's prevalent almost everywhere, but racism right now is more prevalent in the political arena than anywhere else.

Let's just cite a few of today's examples. The first and foremost was Hurricane Katrina, which outlined the apex of white supremacy in America. It was argued that during the flooding of New Orleans and while people were taking refuge in that stadium (can't remember its name), white people were being silently escorted to airfields and airlifted to safety, while everyone else remained in the squalor that is that stadium. Heather Gray writes, on this racist phenomenon,

As we entered the 21st century, I reflected upon the appalling reality of white supremacy in America and the western world generally and decided I wanted to write about it in ways I'd not before. I particularly wanted to challenge other white folks. This resulted in my article "A Message to White America: It's Time We Woke Up" in March 2000 that took on a life of its own. Within minutes of it being posted on the Black Radical Congress list serve and other websites, I started receiving messages from all over the country. This included some scathing remarks from whites, of course, but some 250 remarkably revealing and heartfelt comments from both blacks and whites. It was and remains on numerous websites presently, but given the recent overwhelming tragedy in New Orleans and the gulf coast I wanted to dust it off and re-issue it with a few edits and a forward.

As I watched, with anger, the images of death and destruction of the poor, the people of color, the children and the elders in New Orleans and juxtaposed the same scenes in Iraq I connected the dots. Invariably these tragedies reveal the violent and greedy underbelly of western white supremacy that bolsters and informs the U.S. policies both domestically and internationally. This is, categorically, not only a Bush thingit's American as apple pie. Arrogant white supremacy coupled with government and corporate financial mismanagement is far more than an academic or economic issue or even greed for that matter, it is criminal behavior that leads to loss of life and livelihood for the masses in the U.S. and throughout the world, in fact. But we as whites rarely will allow ourselves to look critically at what we do. We constantly deny our past and present racist and white supremacy policies.

Ms. Gray points out the usual arrogance exhibited by such nationalists, who would see themselves as above criticism, and have an attitude that implicitly exclaims, "What I say is what goes." Of course, there is the arrogance exhibited in the sense that they are the ones who know the "truth" of almost every matter, and exhibit a form of diatribe-filled bigotry. However, when confronted with the objects of their racism, such people tend to denigrate them into believing what they (i.e. racists) claim about the said object.

There is also the prospect of new bills, like the "English-only" bill that was passed, which was more likely a response to the recent flow of immigrants. Now, such a bill is indeed racist, and prejudices the right of immigrants to speak and read whatever language that is native or second nature to them. According to Jonathan Weisman,

That vote, considered a defeat for immigration-rights advocates, was followed last night by an important victory: By 58 to 35, the Senate killed an amendment that would have blocked eventual citizenship for future immigrants who arrive under a temporary work permit. Democrats and Republicans agreed that the amendment would have destroyed the fragile, bipartisan coalition backing the Senate bill.

[...]

With approval of a triple-layered border fence Wednesday, the capping of the annual number of guest-worker visas at 200,000 and the English-language amendment yesterday, Republicans say the bill is tougher than the original version and comes closer to what is needed to satisfy many conservatives.

It seems that there was more to this than meets the eye. Despite the passing of the bill, many are still fiercely opposed to it. Charles Hurt writes,

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called a proposal to make English the official language "racist" on the Senate floor yesterday.

"This amendment is racist. I think it's directed basically to people who speak Spanish," the Democrat said during the already tense debate over immigration reform.

It can also be directed at most minorities, and not just Hispanics. However, such an amendment is tantamount to building up "Americanization" of immigrants, throwing them into the melting pot that is American society.

Why are they doing such a thing? The "melting pot" concept prejudices the rights of one to practice his/her traditions and forces him/her to accept American lifestyle and culture. The "cultural mosaic" concept, adopted by a handful of European countries and Canada, has been a great success in eliminating such racist attitudes. Of course, such xenophobia is due to a limited worldly experience or a limited view on the world. People should stop this, because it has become awfully unbearable. Accept the reality of the situation, because if you seriously think of demographic issues like this, then go elsewhere where you might feel welcomed... or not.

Now, let's go to Europe, where the rise of anti-Muslim, xenophobic fascism is taking its toll.

The argument that Muslims are uniquely facing persecution rests on presenting a catalogue of abuses involving Muslims. Whether it's the war in Iraq, the oppression of Palestinians or the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Guantلnamo Bay, the message is clear: Muslims are getting it in the neck all around the world. It is certainly the case that, when it comes to Western interference, Muslims appear disproportionately in the firing line. Nevertheless, these Western interventions are driven from within rather than from without. Waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan, or chasing the phantom-like al-Qaeda, is not motivated by anti-Muslim feeling; instead such actions are an attempt by Western elites, lacking legitimacy at home, to cohere themselves around a sense of purpose and mission. During the Balkans conflicts of the 1990s, it happened to be Bosnian Serbs caught in the West's opportunistic crossfire. And as it happened, the Bosnian Muslims' cause was championed by conservatives and liberals alike.

We are lead to believe at first that Muslims are receiving the short end of the stick, and it happens so because there are political movements that are against them, or they (Muslims) just happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Martin Jacques, however, gives us a better insight. He wrote,

The war against terrorism has, from the outset, worn a distinctly racist colouration, anti-Muslim and anti-Arab. And western (above all, American) collusion in subsequent brutal Israeli aggression - all in the name of race and ethnicity - has only served to reinforce this. The new willingness of the US to intervene in the developing world wherever and when ever it sees fit speaks not only of the fact that it is the sole superpower but also that it is now prepared to act like an imperial power: the American elite now unashamedly uses terms like Pax Americana and the American Empire. Even in the UK, there is an attempt to relegitimise the notion of colonialism. Such attitudes speak of a new sense of Caucasian superiority, a new desire to subjugate those of other colours and cultures in the name of (our) civilisation. This can only fuel domestic racism, the more so because this time around the subjects of this racism are also the subjects of the new colonialism.

Unfortunately, these days, we as humans have become imperceptive to such racism in the sense that many of us got used to it in the media (see my comment on racism in comedy shows above).

However, with such racism, many people are becoming aware of what it can lead to. In the early and late 1930's, the word "Jew" has become associated with "Communist". Now, the word "Muslim" is becoming associated with "terrorist" and "illegal immigrant" with... well, you get the idea. Such a continued support for racism can only lead to disaster, whether it may be a Holocaust or some other form of it. Ghali Hasan argues,

Tolerance is a falsehood often pronounced with difficulty in Western societies. Small countries such as Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, and Norway are leading the pack in the war on Muslims at home, and may be on the road to encouraging a new Holocaust against humanity.

While these countries are part of the US-led coalition, which is responsible for the mass murder of Iraqis, they have also introduced discriminate and draconian immigration laws which are specifically directed against Muslims fleeing war and economic hardship. The pretexts are always the phantom of the “War on Terror”.

Historically, Muslims have been at the receiving end of Western-Christian violence for centuries. Following the 9/11 attack on the USA, Western Europe joined the US in its anti-Muslim crusade: “We are all Americans now” united against Muslims. In this context, 9/11 is used to legitimise a new form of Western-Christian fascism. Media pundits such as Christopher Hitchens and Daniele Pipes, who support the anti-Muslim ideology are springing up like mushrooms all over the Western world. Using the cliché of “free speech”, they are fuelling a vicious and violent war against Muslims around the world.

The recent blasphemous images of Prophet Mohammed are nothing more than a campaign which promotes racism and violence.

This is nothing new, really. Such people spread ignorance on Islam, which leads to fear, which leads to hate for it. Ghali Hasan continues to write about the rise of anti-Muslim parties everywhere, where the so-called "anti-terror" laws prove to be extremely discriminatory, especially against Muslims living in the West. Muslims can only fear and protest against such a thing. Ghali Hasan also argues that Muslims protested not only against cartoons, but the rise of anti-Muslim hatred as well, all under the guise of free speech. What about anti-Semitism? Is it free speech? Such double standardized racism has gone unpunished.

However, only together can we end racism, and only we can stop this senseless hatred and arrogance.

Saracen