Another beheading

hey there, mikey! i'm not a democrat! :p

and let me tell you something. i lived in israel for five months in 2000-2001 during the latest intifada. all americans were told to leave the country, and most did. the alleyways in jerusalem's old city were empty, when they're usually so packed you have to fight your way through.

we would sit and watch CNN every evening. one thing we noticed about the coverage on israel was how alarmist it was. they made it look like there was all-out war in the country. sometimes we wondered if the journalists were 'blue-screening' it, because the israel of CNN was so different from the israel we lived in. of course there were suicide bombings. yes, i had a close call with a few rockets in the golan heights. yes, there was rioting one evening a few blocks from our house. but, frankly, i felt perfectly safe most of the time. the number of suicide bombs didn't change, whether there were foreigners in the country or not. i used to wake up to gunfire when i lived in harlem. i remember the rodney king riots. i'm also acutely aware of the ridiculously high rate of random violence that plagues our country. but i continue on as normal here; why shouldn't i there?

my point is this: be wary, very wary, of media reports regarding violence abroad. violence sells, and we live in a climate of fear. i know you hate michael moore, but even if you believe the rest of 'bowling for columbine' is nonsense, he made a very good point about america's predisposition for promoting fear. is saudi arabia the safest place for americans right now? probably not. but is it as dangerous as reports would lead us to believe? i doubt it. as for iraq: it's not particularly safe for anyone, including iraqis (muslims or not. remember, former foreign minister tariq aziz was a christian!), so no point in even bringing that up. having said that, i'd still go there. i guess i'm a sucker for danger. should've been a war correspondent.

This is classic revolutionary warfare. When outgunned and out teched one must resort to other means. The suicide bomber/jackass that blows up an ice cream parlor in Israel is fighting for his/her side with the last method they can think of. The sick cowardly bastards that kidnap people and hack their heads off are just doing the same. Instead of helping their society rebuild they continue to destroy it in an attempt to resurrect a new authoritarian brutal regime.

The British and Americans gave 3 principal reasons for going to war in Iraq:

1-Extending the “War on Terror”.

2-Destroy “Weapons of mass destruction”.

3-Remove the brutal “regime” of Saddam and his henchmen, and replace with free democratic government roughly based on the western model.

It has failed on all 3 counts.

1-before the war in Iraq, there was no link between the Iraqi Government and AL Qaeda. Not only is this blatantly apparent to those who understand that Saddam oversaw one of the few secular states in the Middle East, where as Al Qaeda is a Religious Terrorist group, who, among other aims, hold the concept of Muslim states as a principal aim, the US governments own 911 commission found as much. Osama hated Saddam. Not even a common enemy (the US government) united them.

Now, after the War in Iraq, Al Qaeda has moved into Iraq, along with others, feeding on the discontent of the people of Iraq with western imperial involvement in that state - it is mopping up more recruits than the IRA did after bloody Sunday. It is hitting western targets hard (the beheading is the latest example of this). All this (recruits , exposure ,huge discontent) serves to benefit Al Qaeda internationally. According to yesterday’s news, we (western workers) now face the threat of a NUCLEAR terrorist attack. All the while the British and US governments (along with others) ADVANCE plans to develop “tactical nuclear devices”. I can see the “bad guys” licking their lips already.

2- Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. If they existed, he would have used the m when ATTACKED.

The only Weapons of mass destruction were in US and British hands. It should be noted that those governments in the world Who DO have weapons of mass destruction, use them wilfully against civilian targets without reprieve. In Afghanistan , both governments saw fit to use “daisy cutter” bombs on huge areas decapitating in the region of 4912 civilians according to General Peter Pace, vice-chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, who also said about daisy cutters: "As you would expect, they make a heck of a bang when they go off and the intent is to kill people."

When some western mercenaries/engineers/translators get decapitated live on TV, it is quite correctly seen as a gross crime, yet when western governments drop 15,000lb worth of decapitation (the daisy cutter has a detonator located 1m above the ground, with the explicit aim of decapitating those for kilometres around) , it is not really frowned upon, and seen as a sensible use of force, even pragmatic. To me, its mass murder, and anyone (Michael McDermott included) who supports it is culpable. Violence is Violence. It must never be seen as a means to any end. Nobody has the Right to BeHead anyone else. Its Wrong.

“The chain reaction of evil--wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.” – Martin Luther King JR

3- So just one argument FOR war remains : although there was no LEGAL reason to go to war against Saddam, there was a MORAL one. Anyone this side of sane can see that, as Blair said: “Ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity. It is leaving him there that is in truth inhumane.”. Saddam was a brutal fucker, and if the war on Iraq achieved JUST that, then it would be Moral, and correct. Saddam has been removed, but for the wrong reasons, and as a result, Iraq, and Iraqis will be as bad, if not worse off than before. This is because Iraq is not, and so long as the US is pulling the strings , will Never be a free, democratic and prosperous. Were there to be full, free elections tomorrow morning, a sunni muslim government would be returned, and would inact a religious state.

So maybe its better that we save these people form a religious constitution and life under the burka?

This analysis fails under a centrist democratic dialectic. Surely if the majority of US citizens are Christian, its okay for its constitution to be written under the “word of god”. I personally don’t agree with ANY religious state, but will point out the hypocrisy of supporting religion in one (the US), and not in another (Iraq).

The motivation for removing Saddam, is Key to understanding the future path of Iraq. When the “coalition of the willing” moved into Afghanistan, it was to free it from a brutal dictatorship. 3 years on, the US has established Military and political Interests there, heroin production has increased at least 10fold according to the home office, the leader Hamed Karzai is a prisoner, unable to govern, Warlords (fundamental Islamics) run the country, growing smack and making sure women are indoors by 6pm.

Afghanistan was going to be liberated in the same way Iraq will be "free" next month, but the reality is very different.

The reason Afghanistan isn’t free, is because Nobody liberated it. The Taliban (supported by the US in the 1980s under dead Ronnie) are gone, replaced by more Warlords – this time friendly to the US (wouldn’t you be in their position), terrorism is breeding, Osama and co are plotting to get NUCLEAR weapons from their caves (built with US taxpayers money) onto our streets.

Likewise in Iraq, tell me now that its free, tell me in 4 months after the paper has been handed over that its free, tell me in 4 years that it is free. The main source of power for Saddam right ip until the 1980s, was the US government . when he wavered from supplying them with constant, cheap oil, they booted him out. He will be replaced, but not with a democratic leader, but a set of quasi leaders, puppets of US strategic interest in the Middle east. A new dictatorship of sorts, certainly not a "free and prosporous" Iraq

In the mean time, civilians are getting killed. Those civilians not being killed are being radicalised by the religious terrorists, seen as the only alternative to US occupation. The perfect situation for the leaders of the US/ Western capitalists. Support us, or support the terrorists. Anyone else will be shot down in the West, or Shot dead in the middle east.Also great for Osama. Not great for London Underground workers, or people living in the west bank. Divide and Rule. Divide and Rule. ITs what 911 was about, and its what the "war on terror" is about.

For a country to be Liberated, the explicit aim of the liberators must be autonomy for that country and its people. All other interests must be secondary. That is why France is liberated and Afghanistan isn’t.

1. If the US wanted to stop terrorism, it would have spent $19,000 on providing secular education, clean water and sustainable farming in each of those Afghani Towns. IT would have Removed the Pakistani government, Gadafi, the House of Saud, etc etc along with the Taliban.($19,000 average cost of a daisy cutter)

You cannot arm the Taliban and Saddam, support them as they kill and mame others along with their own people, and then drop daisy cutters all over the same civilians, and call your self a liberator.

You cannot arm the Taliban and Saddam, support them as they kill and mame others along with their own people, and then drop daisy cutters all over the same civilians, and expect civilians in those countries to support you as you round up terrorist suspects among them.

2. If the US and Britain wanted to stop Weapons of mass destruction being used, their governments wouldn’t supply stingers to the taliban in the 80s, give Islam Karimov $500,000,000 each year, and sanction the use of weapons of mass destruction like Daisy cutters. It would negotiate arms reduction treaties with China, Russia, Korea, Israel, etc ,etc,etc, instead of DEVELOPING tactical Nuclear devices - likely to be used in the future against foerign targets, or (as seems to have happened now) fall into the "worng hands".

3. If the US government wanted to spread free democracy throughout the world, and protect human rights, It wouldn’t support the torturous Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan paying money and international excuses in return for 2 airstrips, it wouldn’t approve and equipped army operations in East Timor, facilitate genocide in Indonesia - CIA assisted Suharto’s 1965 coup and the subsequent murder of a million Javanese people, the list goes on and on and on (I could, but would be too tired at the end of it to check my email), the latest addition : Gadafi.

The Beheadings are just a small part of this huge international picture. If you are sensitive enough to be moved by the beheadings, surely you’ll protest against your own governments beheadings of the thousands. Anything else is complicity.

Also: Forget about reactionaries like John "heinz billionaire" Kerry and Michael "i make my living from the cult of the bush"Moore- vote Nader!

clockwork--regarding your comment on point #3:

it's possible that iraq might become a fundamentalist nation, but just because a government is led by sunni muslims doesn't mean that they will be 'living under the burqa,' as you say. the only country that requires women to be veiled in public according to its interpretation of shari'a law is saudia arabia. in iran women must cover only their hair in public; in other predominately muslim nations, what a woman covers depends on many factors, including religious orthodoxy, urban or rural setting, family wishes, or even personal choice.

sorry to be so picky, but there are so many variations of islam and islamic practices, and a lot of people don't realize that afghanistan under the taliban was an anomaly.

Originally posted by AgentWood clockwork--regarding your comment on point #3:it's possible that iraq might become a fundamentalist nation, but just because a government is led by sunni muslims doesn't mean that they will be 'living under the burqa,' as you say. the only country that requires women to be veiled in public according to its interpretation of shari'a law is saudia arabia. in iran women must cover only their hair in public; in other predominately muslim nations, what a woman covers depends on many factors, including religious orthodoxy, urban or rural setting, family wishes, or even personal choice.sorry to be so picky, but there are so many variations of islam and islamic practices, and a lot of people don't realize that afghanistan under the taliban was an anomaly.

I fully aggree, my point was that the principal reason given not to hold actual full elections by most right wing commentators, is that an islamic constitution will eventually be enacted - which, as i said- fails under a centerist democratic dialectic.

Personally, im against any constitution with a refrence to any god (that isnt to say im anti-religon).

on another point: afghanistan under the taliban was NOT an anomaly. Rural afghanistan TODAY is as repressive as it was under the taliban, AND backed by mr and mr "freedom" bush and blair, and co.

Originally posted by Spotnick > Originally posted by Biznotic Love Trapezoid> if you're stupid enough to be a non-arab in the arab world right now, you deserve to lose your head. you're certainly not using it!

Well, look at it this way, if you don't go there, they win...

The worst thing that can actually happen is to let them win, and that's unfortunately what happend in Spain, and that gives power to the terrorists.

Do you realize that Al Quaida managed to change the result of an election with terrorism?

Elections are held in Canada next monday, it's a little hard they won't try to do it here as well, as far as I know, we have troups in Afgahnistan....

Difficult thing to do, but the Korean government took the right decision, you just don't negociate with terrorists... I'm a bit sad it worked in Spain though.

And nothing prooves this won't happen on our side of the world eventually....

there are no "winners" in this situation. everyone is a loser. the iraq/al-queda situation will never end. not in our lifetimes anyway.

Originally posted by Clockwork C on another point: afghanistan under the taliban was NOT an anomaly. Rural afghanistan TODAY is as repressive as it was under the taliban, AND backed by mr and mr "freedom" bush and blair, and co.

as i said, the wearing of the veil often has to do with rural/urban differences. however, in pre-taliban afghanistan women held university professorships, they were doctors, and they were lawyers. the taliban changed all that.

well imo agent wood has touched on a very important point in all this as to regarding the media reporting aka(violence sells). islam seems to be the kick the donkey of the moment,and the press just seem to love to whip up anti muslim sentiment in an effort to instigate trouble to sell more sheets of paper. as to the wearing of the veil of islamic women,the press also seem to love pointing out how outdated this is and oppresive ect. they dont tell you about women in africa whom are christian and forced to cut of their fanny flaps and have their fannys stiched up tighter to give the man of the house more pleasure (dont worry about childbirth eh), the simple fact is that you will get acts of aggression from any section of soceity that feels that its being oppressed. and i dont think anyone in here would argue that in the long term the arab world has had a pretty rough ride from the west in general.

Originally posted by mike powell they dont tell you about women in africa whom are christian and forced to cut of their fanny flaps and have their fannys stiched up tighter to give the man of the house more pleasure (dont worry about childbirth eh),

female genital mutilation is performed not for the benefit of the male, but so the female won't feel any pleasure (also to ensure virginity until marriage). it's performed by all religions in africa.

anyway, good point mike.

so, michael, arab-americans and muslims aren't worried about retributions following the beheadings in the middle east?

www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/26/beheading.backlash.ap/index/index.html

Some backlash. Portugese in the UK suffered more after the football game.