rather telling.
This latest essay by Scott Ritter helps to clarify what the history behind the infighting between the Shia and the Sunni in Iraq is really all about.
It is a convoluted mess. You think that Biblical history of the evolution of Christianity and the bloody repression it faced in the early years following Christ's death is complicated? How about the Spanish Inquisition and the repercussions that it wrought? The Protestant movement and its subsequent migration of thousands of Europeans to the Americas, resulting in the extermination of hundreds of indigenous tribal peoples? The Crusades? The Rennaisance?
All of them significant and traceable to the modern day political, social and economic swamp we find ourselves mired in.
However, they all are comparable to the turmoil and strife that was ongoing between the peoples of the Middle East when we were still ignorant of their existence and ways, or worse yet, cognizant of their existence but dismissive of their social structure, which was as sophisticated as a Western model while also adapting its own distinct characteristics.
While long and quickly mind numbing to the average American reader (bear down when you feel your eyes start to cross, it's worth it) Ritter's essay provides a brief rundown of the vital splits that occurred within the Islamic religion resulting in the three major competing sects of the modern day: Shia, Sunni, and Wahabbi, following the death of Muhammad and the ensuing struggle for power at the top levels of the leadership of the Islam faith.
What this all boils down to is that we as Americans have no idea what the root causes of the violence between Sunni and Shia Iraqis are--and even if we did have the respect and take the time to do so we would throw up our hands and let them work it out between themselves. It's been being hashed out between various incarnations of the sects for over 1500 years, so why should they all of the sudden listen to a foreign power who is only really interested in stripping the land of its natural resources tell them how to solve their differences and govern themselves?
To put it into perspective, imagine if a huge foreign power came over to the U. S. and overthrew the current regime (an interesting concept in and of itself) and then tried to institute a form of government that had never been put into practice before; all the while looting the natural resources of the country, dismantling the national, state snd local institutions; leaving almost no public services intact and putting millions of people out of work. The resulting unemployment would manifest itself in the polarization of these suddenly unemployed individuals by various religious groups which have traditionally been at odds with each other. The result would be similar to what we are seeing in Iraq today, only on a much larger and messier scale (the polarized divides would, I'm sorry to say, develop more along an ethnic (I'm loathe to use the term racial--we're all members of the same race--the human race) lines, with minorities at odds with Caucasians and the occupying force).
The occupying force would no doubt be undereducated as to the nuances of the cultural and social history and fault lines of the American experience, from the marginalization of the native American peoples to the enslavement of Negros and other minorities to the war that was fought to restore the Union and secure the freedom of all people in the U. S. to the repression of all those minorities and the various forms that that repression takes up to the present day to the class marginalization that is rampant in the U. S. and so on and so on. Due to this ignorance, the occupying force would have nary a clue as to how to address the violence short of introducing more armed forces into the equation, resulting only in the further inflamation of the violence. Over time, however, the leaders of the various factions would recognize the fallacy in striking at each other as opposed to the occupying forces and begin calling on their followers to act against the occupying force as opposed to each other.
In short, whatever nation or force took on such a task would quickly discover that they had struck an active hornet's nest which they mistook for a beehive full of honey that they thought had been either abandoned or was full of hibernating bees that wouldn't mind all of the honey being "harvested". Further whacking of the nest and other methods of quelling the hornets would continue to prove fruitless. How they responded to this revalation is another matter entirely.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Monday, April 9, 2007
Ve haff vays uff makink zoo talk...
I came home and mowed the lawn instead of zipping over to this gathering, so I thought that a post would serve as some form of penitence (that's the best I can do to tie into the recently passed holiday...) even though I'm dog tired after the effort (damn winter not letting my grass grow so I need to cut it and stay in shape!).
Democracy Now last Thursday:
New revelations have linked the FBI to the interrogation and detention of anti-war protesters in Washington, D.C. According to unearthed police records, a secret FBI intelligence unit helped detain and question a group of protesters in a downtown parking garage in April 2002. Some of the protesters were interrogated on videotape about their political and religious beliefs.
Ah, shades of the good old days:
The actions and orders of the GESTAPO were not subject to judicial review. Under the law of 30 November 1933 the only redress available was by appeal to the next higher authority within the GESTAPO itself.
The reason assigned for the arrest and commitment of persons to concentration camps usually was that, according to the GESTAPO, the person endangered by his attitude the existence and security of the people and the State.
The most casual remark of a German citizen might bring him before the GESTAPO, where his fate and freedom were decided without recourse to law.
Casual remarks, like, "The war in Iraq is illegal."? Or maybe, "The highest members of the administration are guilty of crimes against humanity and should be impeached." ? I thought what Paul Craig Roberts said in his interview on The Monitor here was a bit of a stretch, but after hearing about this latest escapade along with this from 2004 I'm not so sure any more. What makes me see red more than anything else in the case of the DC episode is the long term effect that it has had on one of the protesters, Nat Meysenberg:
I don’t think I’ve been to a protest in D.C. since. Secondly, I have become vastly more distrustful of police orders. I cooperated with police requests and acted in good faith, that I would be let go if I merely cooperated with them. And throughout, they violated my rights, from my very right to show up and speak out against the war to my rights to be free from incarceration and harassment.
These people are supposed to be there to defend the laws and defend my rights, and instead we find them covering things up in federal court for year after year.
However, while he chooses to avoid DC:
But also, more generally it’s galvanized me in a way to speak out about what happened to me and the type of illegal tactics used by police departments all over the country to silence dissenting voices and protesters.
Yet another example of the resilience of the human spirit to express itself that these thick skulled dunderheads in authority can never get through their heads. More info about the fight to preserve Civil Rights and freedom of expression can be found here.
Democracy Now last Thursday:
New revelations have linked the FBI to the interrogation and detention of anti-war protesters in Washington, D.C. According to unearthed police records, a secret FBI intelligence unit helped detain and question a group of protesters in a downtown parking garage in April 2002. Some of the protesters were interrogated on videotape about their political and religious beliefs.
Ah, shades of the good old days:
The actions and orders of the GESTAPO were not subject to judicial review. Under the law of 30 November 1933 the only redress available was by appeal to the next higher authority within the GESTAPO itself.
The reason assigned for the arrest and commitment of persons to concentration camps usually was that, according to the GESTAPO, the person endangered by his attitude the existence and security of the people and the State.
The most casual remark of a German citizen might bring him before the GESTAPO, where his fate and freedom were decided without recourse to law.
Casual remarks, like, "The war in Iraq is illegal."? Or maybe, "The highest members of the administration are guilty of crimes against humanity and should be impeached." ? I thought what Paul Craig Roberts said in his interview on The Monitor here was a bit of a stretch, but after hearing about this latest escapade along with this from 2004 I'm not so sure any more. What makes me see red more than anything else in the case of the DC episode is the long term effect that it has had on one of the protesters, Nat Meysenberg:
I don’t think I’ve been to a protest in D.C. since. Secondly, I have become vastly more distrustful of police orders. I cooperated with police requests and acted in good faith, that I would be let go if I merely cooperated with them. And throughout, they violated my rights, from my very right to show up and speak out against the war to my rights to be free from incarceration and harassment.
These people are supposed to be there to defend the laws and defend my rights, and instead we find them covering things up in federal court for year after year.
However, while he chooses to avoid DC:
But also, more generally it’s galvanized me in a way to speak out about what happened to me and the type of illegal tactics used by police departments all over the country to silence dissenting voices and protesters.
Yet another example of the resilience of the human spirit to express itself that these thick skulled dunderheads in authority can never get through their heads. More info about the fight to preserve Civil Rights and freedom of expression can be found here.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
A night at the cinema
Dennis Hartley has written about the cinematic chronicling of the difficulties of re entering society that veterans face on a daily basis here:
As the Iraq “war” grinds on and we sadly gird our loins to deal with a whole new generation of physically and/or psychologically scarred vets, it’s time to take a look at some of the films that have tackled the difficult subject of “coming home”.
Hands down, one of the most powerful movies ever made about the physical ravages of war is Dalton Trumbo’s 197l anti-war classic “Johnny Got His Gun”, adapted from the director’s own novel. Timothy Bottoms is a horribly wounded WW I vet who lies in a hospital bed for the duration of the film, re-living his war trauma and reviewing his life. His injuries are so grave that, in addition to the loss of all his limbs, he has lost the ability to speak (what is left of his torso and head is wrapped in gauze, mummy style.) Hence, we only “see” Bottoms in black and white flashbacks, with the actor providing voice-over to parlay the racing thoughts going through his mind as he lies helplessly in his hospital bed. (In all seriousness, I would not recommend this film for claustrophobics.)
Recent releases that Hartley doesn't mention include Harsh Times and Jarhead. Some may argue that these two (along with Three Kings)glorify the Iraq experience more than they act as an anti war statement, but it's in the eye of the beholder as far as I'm concerned.
As the Iraq “war” grinds on and we sadly gird our loins to deal with a whole new generation of physically and/or psychologically scarred vets, it’s time to take a look at some of the films that have tackled the difficult subject of “coming home”.
Hands down, one of the most powerful movies ever made about the physical ravages of war is Dalton Trumbo’s 197l anti-war classic “Johnny Got His Gun”, adapted from the director’s own novel. Timothy Bottoms is a horribly wounded WW I vet who lies in a hospital bed for the duration of the film, re-living his war trauma and reviewing his life. His injuries are so grave that, in addition to the loss of all his limbs, he has lost the ability to speak (what is left of his torso and head is wrapped in gauze, mummy style.) Hence, we only “see” Bottoms in black and white flashbacks, with the actor providing voice-over to parlay the racing thoughts going through his mind as he lies helplessly in his hospital bed. (In all seriousness, I would not recommend this film for claustrophobics.)
Recent releases that Hartley doesn't mention include Harsh Times and Jarhead. Some may argue that these two (along with Three Kings)glorify the Iraq experience more than they act as an anti war statement, but it's in the eye of the beholder as far as I'm concerned.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Death of a Brain
I have to believe that the blood clots in his legs are seriously impairing the reasoning abilities of Dick Cheney when he says things like this on the same day the Pentagon issues a report that says this in direct contradiction with him.
It's the only reasonable explanation, but stranger things are possible, I guess...
It's the only reasonable explanation, but stranger things are possible, I guess...
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Got a pulse? You're ready to fight Terror!
Remember the scene in Enemy At The Gates when the new soldiers who had survived a three day train ride in cattle cars and the strafing of the shuttle boats on the Volga were being pressed into service to immediately attack a fortified German position in the meat grinder that was Stalingrad? Every other man was handed a rifle and told "When one man falls, pick up his rifle and move forward."
No briefing, no onsite training, hmmmm, sounds familiar...
UPDATE 4:55 PM CST 5 APR 07:
Time's cover story this week has more:
Even Colin Powell—a retired Army general, onetime Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Bush's first Secretary of State—acknowledges that after spending nearly six years fighting a small war in Afghanistan and four years waging a medium-size war in Iraq, the service whose uniform he wore for 35 years is on the ropes. "The active Army," Powell said in December, "is about broken."
Army equipment is wearing out even faster than Army troops. Gear and weapons are usually left in the war zone to be used by newly arriving troops. That grinds the equipment into scrap up to 10 times as fast as in peacetime. The lack of guns and armor back home has a boomerang effect: many of the troops training in the U.S. are not familiar with what they'll have to depend on once they arrive in Iraq.
No briefing, no onsite training, hmmmm, sounds familiar...
UPDATE 4:55 PM CST 5 APR 07:
Time's cover story this week has more:
Even Colin Powell—a retired Army general, onetime Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Bush's first Secretary of State—acknowledges that after spending nearly six years fighting a small war in Afghanistan and four years waging a medium-size war in Iraq, the service whose uniform he wore for 35 years is on the ropes. "The active Army," Powell said in December, "is about broken."
Army equipment is wearing out even faster than Army troops. Gear and weapons are usually left in the war zone to be used by newly arriving troops. That grinds the equipment into scrap up to 10 times as fast as in peacetime. The lack of guns and armor back home has a boomerang effect: many of the troops training in the U.S. are not familiar with what they'll have to depend on once they arrive in Iraq.
Words, just words
Why can't we just lighten up as a nation and society?
Everyone curses, but it's one of the big taboos on the public airwaves or in a public forum. People get all huffy and offended--"oh my god, he said the f-word on the air! I can't fucking believe he did that!"(ooops...) Or, "oh, that was just uncalled for, especially with all these children around." Give me a break. What with the influence and propensity of so-called profanity in today's world, you'd think that every child's first words would be something like "Put me down, dammit!", or, "Shit, that floor really hurt! why'd you let go of my hands when I was walking for the first time?"
It would really help people air their feelings about issues and people, like Snoop Dog did here. Storytelling would also be more authentic, which is something we need more of in this day and age. people curse all the time, so when someone is relating an anecdote about a conversation they had why do they need to censor it. Like this story Sami Rosouli was relating on Democracy Now about pasing through a US checkpoint in iraq:
So the driver suggested to take a side road, which was dirt and unpaved. So a few minutes later, when we were on that road, we were raided by three Humvees, and about twelve servicemen jumped from their vehicles, pointing their rifles at us, asking us to get out. An Arabic translator was there, also translating whatever the soldiers were saying. And I felt like, I’m not in a good position. So I reached out to my American driver license, and I claimed I’m an American. And then the sweet young man looked at me, and he goes -- I don't know if I can say this -- “No sh**!” so and with a big smile. So I tell him, “You betcha.” So he said, “Well, you must be a Minnesotan.” So he called upon his commander to come and check me out and give me sort of clearance. And when they talked to me, he asked me, “What the f-- you're doing here?” I told him, “Well, I’m visiting family, but what you are doing here?” They said, “We are looking for enemies, terrorists. They just killed two of us in Al Taji.” So I replied, “Am I the enemy?” He said, “No, you look good. You can go.”
It's all part of the backwards logic that runs rampant throughout our entertainment consuming self righteous "I'm better than you because you do this and i would never be caught dead doing it--well, i'd never be caught doing it, lets leave it at that" society:
It's legal to swear, but you'll get fined if you do it over the public airwaves.
It's legal to have sex, but you'll be seriously fined if you broadcast sex on public airwaves (but you can walk into a local smut store and buy a DVD of just about anything you want to watch--except anything involving shit--who came up with that boundary? "Anything goes, but if you start flinging crap, we'll confiscate all the tapes and shut down the studio...", and if you don't want to leave the house and are tired of ranty blogs like this one, there's always a web browser and search engine--not that I would know anything about any of that...)
It's illegal to commit arson, kidnap someone, commit armed robbery, commit murder, steal a car, and any number of other things but those types of acts are all over the freakin TV every night,
And if that's not enough, during the day you can flip on the tube and watch any number of talk shows bring on the perpetrators of any of the aforementioned acts and glorify them. Maybe not intentionally, but to some people watching, the fact that they're ON TV is enough to make them think that going out and doing something like that just to get on TV might actually be worth it.
Of course, this delves into the seriously sick and self cannibalistic tendency that we have as a nation of voyeuristic sickos, which is not really what I started out wanting to write about this time.
We love to rant and rave and about our oral fortitude while we cause more ill will and harm toward people throughout the world in the past 100 years than the world did as a whole for 500 years prior to that.
We froth at the mouth about family values while the number of broken families and single parent households is astronomical in this country.
The contradictory nature of us is astounding:
We tout our ability to bring Democracy to any corner of the globe, but here at home the way things are run doesn't look like the Democracy envisioned by the Revolutionaries (hmmm, revolutionary? as in... Revolutionary Guard? NAHHHHH...) who fought a long and brutal war to earn independence from Great Britain.
We stump for free and open electoral processes throughout the world and stoop to any depth to assure the desired outcome of elections here at home.
I could go on, but you get the picture. I'm not sure where this conflicted nature of ours as a nation and society came from, but I am pretty sure that if left unchecked it will only mean our demise in a less than pleasant way.
"I don't know which species is worse, Burke. You don't see them fucking one another over for a profit margin, do you?"
-Lt. Ellen Ripley, Aliens
Everyone curses, but it's one of the big taboos on the public airwaves or in a public forum. People get all huffy and offended--"oh my god, he said the f-word on the air! I can't fucking believe he did that!"(ooops...) Or, "oh, that was just uncalled for, especially with all these children around." Give me a break. What with the influence and propensity of so-called profanity in today's world, you'd think that every child's first words would be something like "Put me down, dammit!", or, "Shit, that floor really hurt! why'd you let go of my hands when I was walking for the first time?"
It would really help people air their feelings about issues and people, like Snoop Dog did here. Storytelling would also be more authentic, which is something we need more of in this day and age. people curse all the time, so when someone is relating an anecdote about a conversation they had why do they need to censor it. Like this story Sami Rosouli was relating on Democracy Now about pasing through a US checkpoint in iraq:
So the driver suggested to take a side road, which was dirt and unpaved. So a few minutes later, when we were on that road, we were raided by three Humvees, and about twelve servicemen jumped from their vehicles, pointing their rifles at us, asking us to get out. An Arabic translator was there, also translating whatever the soldiers were saying. And I felt like, I’m not in a good position. So I reached out to my American driver license, and I claimed I’m an American. And then the sweet young man looked at me, and he goes -- I don't know if I can say this -- “No sh**!” so and with a big smile. So I tell him, “You betcha.” So he said, “Well, you must be a Minnesotan.” So he called upon his commander to come and check me out and give me sort of clearance. And when they talked to me, he asked me, “What the f-- you're doing here?” I told him, “Well, I’m visiting family, but what you are doing here?” They said, “We are looking for enemies, terrorists. They just killed two of us in Al Taji.” So I replied, “Am I the enemy?” He said, “No, you look good. You can go.”
It's all part of the backwards logic that runs rampant throughout our entertainment consuming self righteous "I'm better than you because you do this and i would never be caught dead doing it--well, i'd never be caught doing it, lets leave it at that" society:
It's legal to swear, but you'll get fined if you do it over the public airwaves.
It's legal to have sex, but you'll be seriously fined if you broadcast sex on public airwaves (but you can walk into a local smut store and buy a DVD of just about anything you want to watch--except anything involving shit--who came up with that boundary? "Anything goes, but if you start flinging crap, we'll confiscate all the tapes and shut down the studio...", and if you don't want to leave the house and are tired of ranty blogs like this one, there's always a web browser and search engine--not that I would know anything about any of that...)
It's illegal to commit arson, kidnap someone, commit armed robbery, commit murder, steal a car, and any number of other things but those types of acts are all over the freakin TV every night,
And if that's not enough, during the day you can flip on the tube and watch any number of talk shows bring on the perpetrators of any of the aforementioned acts and glorify them. Maybe not intentionally, but to some people watching, the fact that they're ON TV is enough to make them think that going out and doing something like that just to get on TV might actually be worth it.
Of course, this delves into the seriously sick and self cannibalistic tendency that we have as a nation of voyeuristic sickos, which is not really what I started out wanting to write about this time.
We love to rant and rave and about our oral fortitude while we cause more ill will and harm toward people throughout the world in the past 100 years than the world did as a whole for 500 years prior to that.
We froth at the mouth about family values while the number of broken families and single parent households is astronomical in this country.
The contradictory nature of us is astounding:
We tout our ability to bring Democracy to any corner of the globe, but here at home the way things are run doesn't look like the Democracy envisioned by the Revolutionaries (hmmm, revolutionary? as in... Revolutionary Guard? NAHHHHH...) who fought a long and brutal war to earn independence from Great Britain.
We stump for free and open electoral processes throughout the world and stoop to any depth to assure the desired outcome of elections here at home.
I could go on, but you get the picture. I'm not sure where this conflicted nature of ours as a nation and society came from, but I am pretty sure that if left unchecked it will only mean our demise in a less than pleasant way.
"I don't know which species is worse, Burke. You don't see them fucking one another over for a profit margin, do you?"
-Lt. Ellen Ripley, Aliens
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Internet Keymaster, Happy Amphibians & Lost Cinematic Gems
This is kinda nuts. Where do the masterminds think their control extends to? just because Al supposedly attributed the invention of the Internet to himself (or an American agency) that makes them think that they can demand the key to it all? I'm sure that the answer to this demand form the community as a whole, especially the EU and major Asian countries is going to be a resounding "NOT!" as well it should be. The internet is a remarkable forum which levels the playing field of information and idea exchange in a way that has never been seen before. The internet is almost Marxian in the manner in which it equalizes all of the content contained in and carried over it--maybe that's what drives all the power mongers batty...
Winter is officially over here in Southeast Texas. the first rainstorms followed by stifling humidity followed by more rain and harmonic Toad croaking was experienced today and is continuing through tonight...
Calling all movie buffs: what unearthed/withheld treasures await our viewing pleasures at the whim of bunt out desensitized movie executives whose only concern is the protection of the studio (read corporate) interests? This calls to mind a quote from Derek Dick, aka Fish, lead singer for the Scottish band Marillion, on the answer to a query about piles of demo tapes he saw in a record company exec's office during a meeting that came from the indifferent exec:
"Oh those, they're just demos that we've gotten from some bands."
The haphazard way that the exec referred to them and the way that they were stacked in an offhand way infuriated Fish, knowing how much effort had to have gone into making the Demos (this was back in the '80's, when computer studios were an inconceivable notion...) and that the demos were the bands ultimate shot at landing some, any kind of touring/recording deal, and that the record companies thrived on the desperation of such bands to make the ludicrous amounts of money that they were able to squeeze out of hardworking talented bands before the age of digital online music sucked all the wind out of their sails before they knew what had happened to them... That pretty much sums up my thoughts about all these unreleased titles...
I just realized that I'm crossing the century mark with this blog (counting the myspace blogs). Hooray for perseverance, I guess. The overactive brain takes a bow...
Winter is officially over here in Southeast Texas. the first rainstorms followed by stifling humidity followed by more rain and harmonic Toad croaking was experienced today and is continuing through tonight...
Calling all movie buffs: what unearthed/withheld treasures await our viewing pleasures at the whim of bunt out desensitized movie executives whose only concern is the protection of the studio (read corporate) interests? This calls to mind a quote from Derek Dick, aka Fish, lead singer for the Scottish band Marillion, on the answer to a query about piles of demo tapes he saw in a record company exec's office during a meeting that came from the indifferent exec:
"Oh those, they're just demos that we've gotten from some bands."
The haphazard way that the exec referred to them and the way that they were stacked in an offhand way infuriated Fish, knowing how much effort had to have gone into making the Demos (this was back in the '80's, when computer studios were an inconceivable notion...) and that the demos were the bands ultimate shot at landing some, any kind of touring/recording deal, and that the record companies thrived on the desperation of such bands to make the ludicrous amounts of money that they were able to squeeze out of hardworking talented bands before the age of digital online music sucked all the wind out of their sails before they knew what had happened to them... That pretty much sums up my thoughts about all these unreleased titles...
I just realized that I'm crossing the century mark with this blog (counting the myspace blogs). Hooray for perseverance, I guess. The overactive brain takes a bow...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)