The psychologists in my extended family tell me that black and white thinking--the idea that something or someone is all good or all bad--is characteristic of (a) children; (b) people with certain psychiatric disorders (Borderline Personality Disorder, for example). It seems to me that demonizing a person is a classic example of black and white thinking. With the Ayatollah long dead, and Bin Laden out of reach, Saddam Hussein was the most recent to be demonized. Clearly, the picture painted was necessary to fuel the illegal U.S. war. Now that he is dead, it may be a good time to examine the extent of the reality behind the Saddam-Demon. Here is one website--evidently censored by Google and Google-News and restored only after massive reader protest--which challenges the conventional wisdom:
http://uruknet.info
Showing posts with label Iraq war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq war. Show all posts
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Abeer Al-Janabi and the Case for Burka
Like the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the rape-murder of fourteen year-old Abeer al-Janabi by U.S. soldiers was labeled an aberration, excused under the now stale label of "work of a misguided few," by the military and their corporate media apologists. The obvious question is: How many "bad apples" can there possibly be?
Rumsfeld is the Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld (and other U.S. military leaders) opined that torture is okay. Rape is one type of torture. So, the syllogism holds that rape is okay. Why then is it surprising that that U.S. troops, under Rumsfeld's chain of command, might engage in rape-murders?
Military atrocities are almost always underreported. I would bet my car (one of my few assets) that hundreds if not thousands of similar attacks on Iraqi women have occurred. In my view, the attack was not an aberration, but wholly congruous with the savage way in which the war has targeted Iraqi civilians from start to finish. Time and again, U.S. soldiers themselves have attested to attacks on civilians.
Another angle to the perfidy visited on Abeer: Since this was not just a random attack, the soldiers had to see her before going after her specifically. So, she was not wearing a burka.
Burkas were rare in both Iraq and Afghanistan prior to imperialist invasion. In Bagdad under Saddam, next to nobody wore the burka. Now burkas are pervasive in Afghanistan, though not as common yet in Iraq.
In light of the U.S.-style liberation of Abeer Al-Janabi, the rants of how Islam/burka-wearing oppresses Muslim women rings hollow. Why wouldn't the Islamists want the women to wear the burka, given the circumstance of occupation by a party which abides by no international law, does not recognize the ICC (or any other body which would hold it accountable for anything), and insists on immunity for its troops? What nation in good conscience wouldn't want to protect the weakest segment of its population against war-time rape, rampant in just about every conflict? To me, what's odd is not that the Islamists want the women to wear the burka, but rather that many, even in the (Eurocentric) anti-war camp, with which I align myself, want Iraqi Muslim women to shed the hijab so they can look more like Barbie--never mind the unrestrained dogs running around their country.
The occupying power, which—under international law—bears responsibility for the welfare of Iraqi women, has shown itself incapable of guaranteeing their safety. And Bosnia should have taught women like Abeer not to wait around for Muslim men to defend them. Muslim women under occupation would do well to wear the burka, as well as to learn self-protection.
Rumsfeld is the Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld (and other U.S. military leaders) opined that torture is okay. Rape is one type of torture. So, the syllogism holds that rape is okay. Why then is it surprising that that U.S. troops, under Rumsfeld's chain of command, might engage in rape-murders?
Military atrocities are almost always underreported. I would bet my car (one of my few assets) that hundreds if not thousands of similar attacks on Iraqi women have occurred. In my view, the attack was not an aberration, but wholly congruous with the savage way in which the war has targeted Iraqi civilians from start to finish. Time and again, U.S. soldiers themselves have attested to attacks on civilians.
Another angle to the perfidy visited on Abeer: Since this was not just a random attack, the soldiers had to see her before going after her specifically. So, she was not wearing a burka.
Burkas were rare in both Iraq and Afghanistan prior to imperialist invasion. In Bagdad under Saddam, next to nobody wore the burka. Now burkas are pervasive in Afghanistan, though not as common yet in Iraq.
In light of the U.S.-style liberation of Abeer Al-Janabi, the rants of how Islam/burka-wearing oppresses Muslim women rings hollow. Why wouldn't the Islamists want the women to wear the burka, given the circumstance of occupation by a party which abides by no international law, does not recognize the ICC (or any other body which would hold it accountable for anything), and insists on immunity for its troops? What nation in good conscience wouldn't want to protect the weakest segment of its population against war-time rape, rampant in just about every conflict? To me, what's odd is not that the Islamists want the women to wear the burka, but rather that many, even in the (Eurocentric) anti-war camp, with which I align myself, want Iraqi Muslim women to shed the hijab so they can look more like Barbie--never mind the unrestrained dogs running around their country.
The occupying power, which—under international law—bears responsibility for the welfare of Iraqi women, has shown itself incapable of guaranteeing their safety. And Bosnia should have taught women like Abeer not to wait around for Muslim men to defend them. Muslim women under occupation would do well to wear the burka, as well as to learn self-protection.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Destruction of Islamic Art—Another Aspect of the Iraq War
Recently, a friend of mine, who is a docent at the Walters Art Gallery in Baltimore, and is both an art afficionado and a friend of the Iraqi people (she is very anti-war) sent me the following:
“AAM/IPAM Iraq Program: Terry Weisser gave an update about the Walters’ plans to participate in the AAM International Partnership Among Museums (IPAM) Iraq program. Two museum professionals from the Iraq National Museum system in Baghdad will arrive at the Walters at the end of April for an intensive 4-week training and mentoring program in our conservation lab. A translator will be provided. Other participating museums include: The Field Museum in Chicago, the California Science Center and Japanese American National Museum in Los Angeles, the Chicago Historical Society, and the National Gallery of Art in Washington.”
This is what I wrote to her:
"On a personal level, the Iraqi government representatives coming over for training with the Walters are probably good people. The mothers of Iraqi torture victims and Iraqi dead planned to come to the U.S. for the Women's Day solidarity action, but the U.S. government denied visas to many of them, so that their stories might not be told. So, it is important to realize that the folks coming over for training at the Walters would not be given U.S. visas if they were not okay with the U.S. occupying force.
Imam Abu Hanifa's mosque (one of the oldest in Islam) was attacked by U.S. artillery. The personal Qur’an of the Caliph Ali (RA) was destroyed by U.S. forces. Keep in mind that Ali (RA) was a contemporary of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), making his Qur’an nearly 1400 years old. More than a dozen mosques--some of them very old--were leveled, during the destruction of Fallujah. Since Iraq was a center for Islamic learning, numerous centuries old Qur'ans (roughly 500 - 1100 years old), similar to those in the Freer and Sackler Galleries, were destroyed by occupying troops. The occupation and destruction has not ceased, and although these actions may not be directly attributable to the Iraqi government representatives who will be visiting the Walters, you might understand why such a visit at this time might be construed as hypocrisy. There is great angst not just amongst Iraqis, but also in the Muslim community at large about the destruction of ancient Islamic sites as a result of this war.
So, it is the height of cynicism that U.S. authorities--which allowed the Bagdad Museum to be looted, and who are clearly implicated in the destruction of Islamic antiquities--are now feigning interest (through their proxy government) in "conservation" of artifacts."
“AAM/IPAM Iraq Program: Terry Weisser gave an update about the Walters’ plans to participate in the AAM International Partnership Among Museums (IPAM) Iraq program. Two museum professionals from the Iraq National Museum system in Baghdad will arrive at the Walters at the end of April for an intensive 4-week training and mentoring program in our conservation lab. A translator will be provided. Other participating museums include: The Field Museum in Chicago, the California Science Center and Japanese American National Museum in Los Angeles, the Chicago Historical Society, and the National Gallery of Art in Washington.”
This is what I wrote to her:
"On a personal level, the Iraqi government representatives coming over for training with the Walters are probably good people. The mothers of Iraqi torture victims and Iraqi dead planned to come to the U.S. for the Women's Day solidarity action, but the U.S. government denied visas to many of them, so that their stories might not be told. So, it is important to realize that the folks coming over for training at the Walters would not be given U.S. visas if they were not okay with the U.S. occupying force.
Imam Abu Hanifa's mosque (one of the oldest in Islam) was attacked by U.S. artillery. The personal Qur’an of the Caliph Ali (RA) was destroyed by U.S. forces. Keep in mind that Ali (RA) was a contemporary of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), making his Qur’an nearly 1400 years old. More than a dozen mosques--some of them very old--were leveled, during the destruction of Fallujah. Since Iraq was a center for Islamic learning, numerous centuries old Qur'ans (roughly 500 - 1100 years old), similar to those in the Freer and Sackler Galleries, were destroyed by occupying troops. The occupation and destruction has not ceased, and although these actions may not be directly attributable to the Iraqi government representatives who will be visiting the Walters, you might understand why such a visit at this time might be construed as hypocrisy. There is great angst not just amongst Iraqis, but also in the Muslim community at large about the destruction of ancient Islamic sites as a result of this war.
So, it is the height of cynicism that U.S. authorities--which allowed the Bagdad Museum to be looted, and who are clearly implicated in the destruction of Islamic antiquities--are now feigning interest (through their proxy government) in "conservation" of artifacts."
Saturday, October 8, 2005
Code Pink Protest at Walter Reed Military Hospital
On September 23, I attended the Code Pink vigil outside Walter Reed Military Hospital in Northwest Washington, DC. Code Pink’s demands are: 1) an end to the Iraq occupation and withdrawal of U.S. troops; 2) proper medical care for injured troops (predominantly poor people) when they return home.
The vigil participants numbered perhaps 40-50, many of them wearing pink. Too late, I remembered I should have worn my pink shalwar kameez. Attendance was higher than usual, for the weekly vigil, with many activists in town early for the national anti-war protest the next day.
Directly across the street from the vigil was a group of counter-demonstrators, whose numbers very nearly matched those of Code Pink. These numbers were an odd contradiction of the polls, which show that an overwhelming majority of Americans now oppose the war.
Code Pink’s members are primarily Caucasian women. Many of them dress in very feminine fashion, decked out in beautiful, old-fashioned pink hats, frilly pink dresses and pink shawls. But they are very tough, for it was some of their members who lay down in the streets and refused to move, protesting the inhumanity of the war very early on.
“We wear pink,” one of them told me during a previous vigil, “because it is a peaceful and soothing color, and also to draw attention to the farce of the Code Red, Code Orange, and other alerts issued by the Bush administration post 9-11.”
I’d just walked up to the vigil when a petite, fashionably dressed brunette, with shoulder length hair, came up to me and introduced herself, “Hi, I’m Medea.”
So, this was Code Pink’s gutsy co-founder, Medea Benjamin. Earlier this year, Medea had disrupted Condoleezza Rice’s San Francisco speech. Dressed in a black hood and cloak similar to that worn by Iraqi prisoners, she’d stood up screaming, "Stop the torture. Stop the killing. U.S. out of Iraq," until she was removed from the hall by authorities. She had all my respect.
I shook her hand and thanked her for her efforts against the war. At the time, I was not aware that Medea planned to be arrested in the mass civil disobedience two days later. She exuded a tranquility that comes, perhaps, from working for justice.
The Code Pink women are very organized. Someone offered me a candle with a nice holder; someone else handed me a flier. The flier instructed me not to interact with the counter-demonstrators. Don’t talk to press members, unless they present ID, the flier said.
Don’t talk to press? That’s a little extreme, I thought.
Later, after some searching on the web, I found articles from Cybercast News Service (CNS) and other right-wing sources attacking Medea Benjamin, quoting the right wing demonstrators at length, and offering only brief quotes of questionable authenticity from Code Pink protestors. Yes, this is the same CNS which attacked Dr. Siddique at the behest of the Zionists. Now you know why not to talk to the (Zionist) media, stupid!
A few weeks ago, a young soldier had joined the Code Pink vigil. He’d returned from Iraq thoroughly disillusioned by the war. Still angry and emotional at what he’d experienced, he was provoked into a physical confrontation by the taunts of the counter-demonstrators. Police quickly broke up the incident, but the Code Pink women were determined there should be no repeat of this.
I found that young soldier and talked with him for a few minutes.
He said “Those guys across the street, look at their hair. It’s too long. They can’t have been over there. That is why they support the war. They have no idea what the U.S. is doing over there.”
A Vietnam veteran who stood with us agreed. The current administration, he said, are all cowards and draft dodgers, hiding behind their power and wealth. Most of them don’t have any military service under their belt. That is why they take war so lightly.”
I squinted to read the counter demonstrators’ signs, in an effort to understand their argument. There was none. They carried bizarre signs, such as “Code Pink Funds Terrorists,” and “America’s Armed Forces: Bringing democracy to the world, toppling one dictator at a time.” Some of them wore tee-shirts saying “Club G’itmo.”
Their main point seemed to be that Code Pink--not an illegal war--is the problem.
It was the classic propaganda tactic: when you can’t answer your opponent’s argument with facts, create as much confusion as you possibly can, with wild accusations.
A young Italian-American woman wearing camouflage pants handed me one end of a Code Pink banner. “I made this banner,” she announced proudly. It read “Money for the Wounded, Not for the War.”
A $3 billion shortfall is expected for Veterans Administration (VA) funding; many veterans hospitals (including Walter Reed) are under threat of closure. The Code Pink banner was on point, elucidating the hypocrisy of the Bush regime, in its dealings with its own fighting men and women.
While I held the banner, a conservatively dressed Code Pink woman, who appeared to be in her sixties or seventies, with entirely grey hair, darted out into traffic. As I watched in amazement, she energetically handed out fliers announcing the anti-war march the next day to passing cars as they pulled up to the Georgia Avenue traffic signal.
I chatted with two elderly woman in bright pink Stetsons. They had come from Texas for the national march the next day. One of them told me she had been in Camp Casey for several weeks, and then joined a contingent to deliver a protest letter to Laura Bush, in response to her racist comments following Hurricane Katrina.
Just as I was about to ask her if they’d been successful in delivering the letter, the entire group of Code Pink women broke out in song to the accompaniment of a banjo: “I ain’t going to study war no more,” a very creative anti-war version of “When the Saints Come Marching In”, and other well known peace songs.
(The vigil continues every Friday night at 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm outside the main entrance of Walter Reed Medical Center, in Northwest DC).
The vigil participants numbered perhaps 40-50, many of them wearing pink. Too late, I remembered I should have worn my pink shalwar kameez. Attendance was higher than usual, for the weekly vigil, with many activists in town early for the national anti-war protest the next day.
Directly across the street from the vigil was a group of counter-demonstrators, whose numbers very nearly matched those of Code Pink. These numbers were an odd contradiction of the polls, which show that an overwhelming majority of Americans now oppose the war.
Code Pink’s members are primarily Caucasian women. Many of them dress in very feminine fashion, decked out in beautiful, old-fashioned pink hats, frilly pink dresses and pink shawls. But they are very tough, for it was some of their members who lay down in the streets and refused to move, protesting the inhumanity of the war very early on.
“We wear pink,” one of them told me during a previous vigil, “because it is a peaceful and soothing color, and also to draw attention to the farce of the Code Red, Code Orange, and other alerts issued by the Bush administration post 9-11.”
I’d just walked up to the vigil when a petite, fashionably dressed brunette, with shoulder length hair, came up to me and introduced herself, “Hi, I’m Medea.”
So, this was Code Pink’s gutsy co-founder, Medea Benjamin. Earlier this year, Medea had disrupted Condoleezza Rice’s San Francisco speech. Dressed in a black hood and cloak similar to that worn by Iraqi prisoners, she’d stood up screaming, "Stop the torture. Stop the killing. U.S. out of Iraq," until she was removed from the hall by authorities. She had all my respect.
I shook her hand and thanked her for her efforts against the war. At the time, I was not aware that Medea planned to be arrested in the mass civil disobedience two days later. She exuded a tranquility that comes, perhaps, from working for justice.
The Code Pink women are very organized. Someone offered me a candle with a nice holder; someone else handed me a flier. The flier instructed me not to interact with the counter-demonstrators. Don’t talk to press members, unless they present ID, the flier said.
Don’t talk to press? That’s a little extreme, I thought.
Later, after some searching on the web, I found articles from Cybercast News Service (CNS) and other right-wing sources attacking Medea Benjamin, quoting the right wing demonstrators at length, and offering only brief quotes of questionable authenticity from Code Pink protestors. Yes, this is the same CNS which attacked Dr. Siddique at the behest of the Zionists. Now you know why not to talk to the (Zionist) media, stupid!
A few weeks ago, a young soldier had joined the Code Pink vigil. He’d returned from Iraq thoroughly disillusioned by the war. Still angry and emotional at what he’d experienced, he was provoked into a physical confrontation by the taunts of the counter-demonstrators. Police quickly broke up the incident, but the Code Pink women were determined there should be no repeat of this.
I found that young soldier and talked with him for a few minutes.
He said “Those guys across the street, look at their hair. It’s too long. They can’t have been over there. That is why they support the war. They have no idea what the U.S. is doing over there.”
A Vietnam veteran who stood with us agreed. The current administration, he said, are all cowards and draft dodgers, hiding behind their power and wealth. Most of them don’t have any military service under their belt. That is why they take war so lightly.”
I squinted to read the counter demonstrators’ signs, in an effort to understand their argument. There was none. They carried bizarre signs, such as “Code Pink Funds Terrorists,” and “America’s Armed Forces: Bringing democracy to the world, toppling one dictator at a time.” Some of them wore tee-shirts saying “Club G’itmo.”
Their main point seemed to be that Code Pink--not an illegal war--is the problem.
It was the classic propaganda tactic: when you can’t answer your opponent’s argument with facts, create as much confusion as you possibly can, with wild accusations.
A young Italian-American woman wearing camouflage pants handed me one end of a Code Pink banner. “I made this banner,” she announced proudly. It read “Money for the Wounded, Not for the War.”
A $3 billion shortfall is expected for Veterans Administration (VA) funding; many veterans hospitals (including Walter Reed) are under threat of closure. The Code Pink banner was on point, elucidating the hypocrisy of the Bush regime, in its dealings with its own fighting men and women.
While I held the banner, a conservatively dressed Code Pink woman, who appeared to be in her sixties or seventies, with entirely grey hair, darted out into traffic. As I watched in amazement, she energetically handed out fliers announcing the anti-war march the next day to passing cars as they pulled up to the Georgia Avenue traffic signal.
I chatted with two elderly woman in bright pink Stetsons. They had come from Texas for the national march the next day. One of them told me she had been in Camp Casey for several weeks, and then joined a contingent to deliver a protest letter to Laura Bush, in response to her racist comments following Hurricane Katrina.
Just as I was about to ask her if they’d been successful in delivering the letter, the entire group of Code Pink women broke out in song to the accompaniment of a banjo: “I ain’t going to study war no more,” a very creative anti-war version of “When the Saints Come Marching In”, and other well known peace songs.
(The vigil continues every Friday night at 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm outside the main entrance of Walter Reed Medical Center, in Northwest DC).
Thursday, March 17, 2005
A Moment of Silence
Is there a new wave of propaganda against the Sudanese government to detract attention from the numerous and sundry anti-war actions around the anniversary of the illegal Iraq war this weekend? It seemed like something was underfoot, judging from my ordinarily apolitical Philosophy class today.
The kids in many of my college classes look really young. I mean, junior high (or in some cases, elementary school) young. One of the elementary school-looking kids, a tiny white boy with a perfect bowl-over-the-head haircut walked into the Philosophy class ("Intro to Moral Theory") with an agenda. He mumbled something to the prof about "Sudan" and "moment of silence." The Prof, named Jim, a young-ish redneck type from Arkansas, complete with accent and jackshirt (but not necessarily attitude) to match, is perpetually late. Today he arrived ten minutes late and was in a hurry to start the class, and so rapidly brushed off Elementary School Boy after agreeing to the latter's mumbled request. Jim lectured for a half hour on Kant and Hume and their views on the origin of morality. When it was almost 3:00, he stopped his lecture and handed over the floor to the Elementary School Boy.
Elementary School Boy introduced his subject, "Sudan is a country in Africa, where terrible killings are taking place. The Sudanese goverment has attempted to force 'Shari'a' or Islamic Law on the country..." He went on a la O'Reilly that the Sudanese government had turned a blind eye to the Jan, Janja-weed, killing of non-Muslims in Darfur," stumbling over the word "Janjaweed." "No one knows for sure how many had been killed there, but it could easily be 300,000."
No one moved. In an honors class, with very bright, young students who actually read, everyone was sitting there, swallowing the propaganda.
Prof was adding his two cents: "And as you say, nothing is being done about this. So, just like the Nazi Holocaust, or the Rwanda genocide, just knowing about a horrible tragedy is not enough to get people to act. Like Hume would say, reason is not enough to elicit action. Sentiment, or how you feel about something is what finally gets you to act."
Sudan...what in hell did this have to do with Philosophy, I thought. "Excuse me, but I don't agree with you, " I abruptly told Elementary School Boy. "Actually the Sudanese government HAS done everything it could to stop the killings including applying corporal punishment to Janjaweed militia members. The stats that you mention are very questionable. No one who quotes them seems to be able to identify their source, and the number is probably highly exaggerated. We tend to demonize governments and individuals against whom we have an agenda, as we did in Iraq, but things are not black and white."
The Elementary Boy had a slightly agaust look on his face, which said "You can't be saying this." He had no answers. Jim stepped in suavely and said, "Okay, I don't want to turn this into a debate. It's almost three o'clock. Do we want to have the moment of silence, or not?"
They held the moment of silence. When it was over, I said, "Considering that it is the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq on Saturday, perhaps it would be more appropriate to hold a moment of silence for the 100,000 Iraqis who have died as a result of our aggressive war." "Yeah sure," quipped Jim, trying to turn it into a joke. "Anyone else want a moment of silence?" So it was that the class, complete with its collection of rednecks, drawn from the local KKK-supporting population for which Catonsville (location of my University of Maryland campus) is famous, held a moment of silence for the Iraqi dead.
Stranger things have come to pass.
Some Afterthoughts
Suppose even one tenth the number of alleged Sudanese deaths occurred. That would mean 30,000 dead African brothers and sisters--a tragedy which should concern any person of conscience. That said, I am deeply suspicious of the motives behind the current "Free Darfur" campaign, since it carries a veiled threat of U.S. intervention in yet another independent sovereign nation. Only after my interlude with Elementary School Boy did I learn of the sponsor of the Moments of Silence--Hillel. Evidently the Moments of Silence were part of a coordinated Hillel campaign at campuses around the country. The questions I would ask: Since when did Zionist Jews become so concerned about human rights in Africa? Considering Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, what high moral ground have they? And why the call for moments of silence for Sudan at this particular time?
Hillel has not, to my knowledge called for moments of silence for victims of the Iraq war. It seems to me that would be much more appropriate for three reasons: 1) the U.S. was directly responsible for the murders of innocent Iraqis; 2) unlike the numbers of Sudanese dead, the numbers of Iraqi war victims have been thoroughly documented (in the British Medical Journal, the Lancet); 3) this past week--when Hillel was conducting its moments of silence for Sudan--was the anniversary of the illegal U.S. invasion.
In Darfur, the U.S. is, for once, innocent of direct involvement in the killings. Unlike in Iraq, Darfurian civilian deaths are not the consequence of U.S. taxdollars at work. This is not to say we should not be concerned about Sudan, but we should question the motives of propaganda which demonizes an independent Third World nation. If, as in the Iraqi case, a successful Zionist-instigated Free Darfur propaganda campaign transitions into a Free Darfur military campaign, the consequence may be the lives of hundreds of thousands more Sudanese.
Imperialist propaganda directed at Third World nations--particularly those revealing any semblance of independence from Western powers--assumes a predictable pattern:
PANAMA INVASION: "Noriega is a drug dealer. He's not governing his country responsibly. Panamanians are oppressed under him. He needs to be removed." U.S. overthrows and imprisons Noreiga.
AFGHANISTAN INVASION: "Taliban are bad. They abuse their women. Everybody hates Taliban. So let's help the Afghans." U.S. bombs Afghanistan to smithereens, installs puppet in Kabul, and takes control of Afghan natural gas and other natural resources.
IRAQ INVASION: "Iraq's leaders are bad. They killed Kurds in Halabcha (during the Iran-Iraq war, with U.S. support). Iraqis hate Saddam. So, let's go liberate them." U.S. destroys Iraq, installs yes-man, and pilfers Iraq's oil and other natural resources.
HAITI: "Haitians are starving under Aristide (nevermind the U.S. veto of all World Bank and other aid to Haiti during Aristide's last term). He's had years to improve conditions for his people and he couldn't do it. Maybe it's time for a change." U.S. kidnaps Aristide. Pro-U.S. government is installed.
Documentation for 300,000 Sudanese dead is nonexistent to my knowledge. I am still looking for it, and will look at the U.N. website today (recall that the U.N. refused to call it a genocide). Reports from independent observers which I find credible say killings have taken place, but that the numbers are much lower than is spewed by the U.S. media. Recall that the U.S. was funding the SPLA (Christian militia) in Southern Sudan. So while the Khartoum government was trying to contain the SPLA (U.S.- instigated) rebellion, the situation in Darfur was deteriorating. By the time the Sudanese government turned its attention to Darfur, many killings had already occurred. The government imposed harsh measures against the Janjaweed militia carrying out the atrocities, including literally cutting off the hands of a number of them, in accordance with Sharia (Islamic Law).
My opinion is that Americans are finally realizing that they were completely and utterly duped into attacking Iraq, and that public sentiment is finally turning against the war. The DOD cannot simply keep issuing denials of reports on torture and other violations of the Geneva Conventions, which are now carried even by the NY Times and BBC among mainstream media. So Darfur is the red herring, which will keep the outrage of the U.S. masses distracted from the consequences of their own government's genocide, and from demanding resignation, impeachment, and other actions in a system where elected officials are ostensibly answerable to their constituents.
The kids in many of my college classes look really young. I mean, junior high (or in some cases, elementary school) young. One of the elementary school-looking kids, a tiny white boy with a perfect bowl-over-the-head haircut walked into the Philosophy class ("Intro to Moral Theory") with an agenda. He mumbled something to the prof about "Sudan" and "moment of silence." The Prof, named Jim, a young-ish redneck type from Arkansas, complete with accent and jackshirt (but not necessarily attitude) to match, is perpetually late. Today he arrived ten minutes late and was in a hurry to start the class, and so rapidly brushed off Elementary School Boy after agreeing to the latter's mumbled request. Jim lectured for a half hour on Kant and Hume and their views on the origin of morality. When it was almost 3:00, he stopped his lecture and handed over the floor to the Elementary School Boy.
Elementary School Boy introduced his subject, "Sudan is a country in Africa, where terrible killings are taking place. The Sudanese goverment has attempted to force 'Shari'a' or Islamic Law on the country..." He went on a la O'Reilly that the Sudanese government had turned a blind eye to the Jan, Janja-weed, killing of non-Muslims in Darfur," stumbling over the word "Janjaweed." "No one knows for sure how many had been killed there, but it could easily be 300,000."
No one moved. In an honors class, with very bright, young students who actually read, everyone was sitting there, swallowing the propaganda.
Prof was adding his two cents: "And as you say, nothing is being done about this. So, just like the Nazi Holocaust, or the Rwanda genocide, just knowing about a horrible tragedy is not enough to get people to act. Like Hume would say, reason is not enough to elicit action. Sentiment, or how you feel about something is what finally gets you to act."
Sudan...what in hell did this have to do with Philosophy, I thought. "Excuse me, but I don't agree with you, " I abruptly told Elementary School Boy. "Actually the Sudanese government HAS done everything it could to stop the killings including applying corporal punishment to Janjaweed militia members. The stats that you mention are very questionable. No one who quotes them seems to be able to identify their source, and the number is probably highly exaggerated. We tend to demonize governments and individuals against whom we have an agenda, as we did in Iraq, but things are not black and white."
The Elementary Boy had a slightly agaust look on his face, which said "You can't be saying this." He had no answers. Jim stepped in suavely and said, "Okay, I don't want to turn this into a debate. It's almost three o'clock. Do we want to have the moment of silence, or not?"
They held the moment of silence. When it was over, I said, "Considering that it is the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq on Saturday, perhaps it would be more appropriate to hold a moment of silence for the 100,000 Iraqis who have died as a result of our aggressive war." "Yeah sure," quipped Jim, trying to turn it into a joke. "Anyone else want a moment of silence?" So it was that the class, complete with its collection of rednecks, drawn from the local KKK-supporting population for which Catonsville (location of my University of Maryland campus) is famous, held a moment of silence for the Iraqi dead.
Stranger things have come to pass.
Some Afterthoughts
Suppose even one tenth the number of alleged Sudanese deaths occurred. That would mean 30,000 dead African brothers and sisters--a tragedy which should concern any person of conscience. That said, I am deeply suspicious of the motives behind the current "Free Darfur" campaign, since it carries a veiled threat of U.S. intervention in yet another independent sovereign nation. Only after my interlude with Elementary School Boy did I learn of the sponsor of the Moments of Silence--Hillel. Evidently the Moments of Silence were part of a coordinated Hillel campaign at campuses around the country. The questions I would ask: Since when did Zionist Jews become so concerned about human rights in Africa? Considering Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, what high moral ground have they? And why the call for moments of silence for Sudan at this particular time?
Hillel has not, to my knowledge called for moments of silence for victims of the Iraq war. It seems to me that would be much more appropriate for three reasons: 1) the U.S. was directly responsible for the murders of innocent Iraqis; 2) unlike the numbers of Sudanese dead, the numbers of Iraqi war victims have been thoroughly documented (in the British Medical Journal, the Lancet); 3) this past week--when Hillel was conducting its moments of silence for Sudan--was the anniversary of the illegal U.S. invasion.
In Darfur, the U.S. is, for once, innocent of direct involvement in the killings. Unlike in Iraq, Darfurian civilian deaths are not the consequence of U.S. taxdollars at work. This is not to say we should not be concerned about Sudan, but we should question the motives of propaganda which demonizes an independent Third World nation. If, as in the Iraqi case, a successful Zionist-instigated Free Darfur propaganda campaign transitions into a Free Darfur military campaign, the consequence may be the lives of hundreds of thousands more Sudanese.
Imperialist propaganda directed at Third World nations--particularly those revealing any semblance of independence from Western powers--assumes a predictable pattern:
PANAMA INVASION: "Noriega is a drug dealer. He's not governing his country responsibly. Panamanians are oppressed under him. He needs to be removed." U.S. overthrows and imprisons Noreiga.
AFGHANISTAN INVASION: "Taliban are bad. They abuse their women. Everybody hates Taliban. So let's help the Afghans." U.S. bombs Afghanistan to smithereens, installs puppet in Kabul, and takes control of Afghan natural gas and other natural resources.
IRAQ INVASION: "Iraq's leaders are bad. They killed Kurds in Halabcha (during the Iran-Iraq war, with U.S. support). Iraqis hate Saddam. So, let's go liberate them." U.S. destroys Iraq, installs yes-man, and pilfers Iraq's oil and other natural resources.
HAITI: "Haitians are starving under Aristide (nevermind the U.S. veto of all World Bank and other aid to Haiti during Aristide's last term). He's had years to improve conditions for his people and he couldn't do it. Maybe it's time for a change." U.S. kidnaps Aristide. Pro-U.S. government is installed.
Documentation for 300,000 Sudanese dead is nonexistent to my knowledge. I am still looking for it, and will look at the U.N. website today (recall that the U.N. refused to call it a genocide). Reports from independent observers which I find credible say killings have taken place, but that the numbers are much lower than is spewed by the U.S. media. Recall that the U.S. was funding the SPLA (Christian militia) in Southern Sudan. So while the Khartoum government was trying to contain the SPLA (U.S.- instigated) rebellion, the situation in Darfur was deteriorating. By the time the Sudanese government turned its attention to Darfur, many killings had already occurred. The government imposed harsh measures against the Janjaweed militia carrying out the atrocities, including literally cutting off the hands of a number of them, in accordance with Sharia (Islamic Law).
My opinion is that Americans are finally realizing that they were completely and utterly duped into attacking Iraq, and that public sentiment is finally turning against the war. The DOD cannot simply keep issuing denials of reports on torture and other violations of the Geneva Conventions, which are now carried even by the NY Times and BBC among mainstream media. So Darfur is the red herring, which will keep the outrage of the U.S. masses distracted from the consequences of their own government's genocide, and from demanding resignation, impeachment, and other actions in a system where elected officials are ostensibly answerable to their constituents.
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Fahrenheit 911 – Film Review
Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 911, exhibits all the strengths and weaknesses of the liberal left. Moore, an outspoken opponent of the U.S. war on Iraq, brilliantly titles the film after science fiction writer Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. In the original sci-fi novel, it is the job of the firemen, who work for the authoritarian police state, to burn books. The temperature at which the book burning is achieved is 451 F. Moore's analogy here seems to be that the conditions under which unprovoked and–under international law–illegal war by a superpower on an independent, sovereign nation is achieved is when an incident such as 9-11 has occurred, or been permitted to occur.
Moore appropriately begins the film by reminding viewers of the conditions under which the "President" of the U.S. assumed office, focusing on the disenfranchisement of Black voters in several Florida counties. For readers of the NT Forum who have been following the reactionary role of Fox News in the railroading and blackballing of Muslim leaders and causes, Fahrenheit reveals an interesting point about Fox: With the polls still open on Election Day 2000, and all the major television stations broadcasting that Gore was well ahead in the Florida race, suddenly and gratuitously, the Fox News Channel announced that Bush had won that state. The other stations, embarrassed at their perceived mistake, quickly followed suit, retracting their original broadcasts and announced the putative Bush win–a win so dubious that the case eventually resulted in dozens of Congressional Hearings and ultimately wound up in the Supreme Court. But on Election Day, the announcement by Fox News of Bush's win might well have influenced results at the polls; more importantly it raised questions of whether Fox reported or fabricated the news. (For more on Fox News, see the critical documentary Outfoxed now playing in selected area theaters and available on video soon.)
In Fahrenheit 911, Moore uses humor to cover an otherwise heart-wrenching story: the story of a president who covers his own ineptitude in neglecting the national security interests of the country prior to 911 by going to war to destroy an innocent and defenseless Iraqi nation. Off over 500 members of the U.S. Congress, only one has a son or daughter in the armed forces in Iraq, says Moore, who in the movie is shown somewhat comically accosting these fast-retreating legislators before the cameras, audaciously requesting them to volunteer a son or a daughter to fight for freedom and democracy in Iraq. He rents an ice cream truck and drives around Capital Hill reading the Patriot Act over the loud speakers of the truck as a service to Congress members, who have signed away the First Amendment Rights of the people, with scarcely a glance at the text of the draconian bill they have signed.
Fahrenheit has the integrity to show extensive footage from un-embedded journalists: Iraqi children screaming with pain from napalm wounds, trucks laden down with civilian corpses, and the terror experienced by Iraqi women during house-to-house searches by U.S. soldiers. Moore's interviews with U.S. soldiers revealed the diversity of attitudes among these young men and women. One young black marine, a Muslim, said he preferred jail to being returned to Iraq to fight other people of color, who had done nothing to him. Another, a bespectacled Caucasian youth, reported that once the adrenaline was pumping, and the right music was playing in the tank or humvee, he would shoot up the enemy without qualm, preferably to the tune of "The roof is on fire..."
In a profoundly personal touch, Moore juxtaposes the bombed out areas in Iraq with scenes from his hometown of Flint, Michigan. Footage of Flint's slums with their rampant unemployment and ramshackle housing shows a striking resemblance to parts of Iraq. Ironically, this desperately poor U.S. town, and many others like it, is prime recruiting area for the U.S. military. Here, says Moore, the children of poor Blacks and Whites, who have few employment options, and often view the military as a means of paying for college, are picked up for military service–to go and kill the children of poor Iraqis.
In contrast with his clarity on the inhumanity of the war, Moore seems confused about the driving force to go to war. Through various interviews, Moore brings up the point that plans to attack Iraq were clearly laid out well before September 11. Perhaps the first quarter of the film amply emphasizes Bush's ineptitude, inaction, and his vacation panacea–when the going gets rough, the Prez goes on vacation. And Moore cuts poor Bush no breaks for going on one vacation after another early in his administration. In one scene, Bush appears in a Florida kindergarten classroom (actual footage) reading a children's book with the class as part of a photo-op. As he sits in the classroom, an aid enters to inform him that the first plane has crashed into the World Trade Center. The Commander-In-Chief remains exactly where he is in the kindergarten, calmly reading the kiddy book, with a slightly moronic look on his face. Moore's voice over explains that perhaps Bush's inaction stems from the fact that no secret service members are around to suggest an appropriate response to the President. It is clear from this and numerous other scenes that Moore might not put money on Bush's intellectual ability.
Someone more focused, agenda-driven, and amoral even than Bush had to come up with a plan to attack Iraq--in defiance of the Security Council, the U.N. General Assembly, the EU, and NATO; in contempt of traditional U.S. allies France and Germany; and in utter disregard for worldwide protests. And that someone had to be determined enough to persevere with the plan, even if no WMDs were found; even if the U.S. image and alliances throughout the world were tarnished; even if it meant years of U.S. occupation of Iraq, at costs threatening to bring down the U.S. economy; and even if it meant heightened hatred for U.S. imperial policies and increased risk of terrorist attacks on the U.S. itself. Yet the illustrious film-maker offers no suggestions as to the masterminds of such a well thought out scheme. Perhaps in consideration of his career as a Hollywood film-maker, Moore carefully sidesteps scrutiny of the political allegiances of the men formulating policy for the Bush Administration: Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, or any of the other AIPAC affiliated-Neocons to whom Bush routinely reports. Interestingly, Wolfowitz and Perle, despite their vociferous and unabashed push to attack Iraq, barely appear in the film. Instead, Administration mouth pieces--Rice, Powell, and George Dubya himself–are shown repeatedly throughout the film. They are like puppets with unseen puppeteers.
The film spends considerable time exploring links between the "Saudi" royal family and the Bush family, and the fact that numerous Saudis were permitted unencumbered exit from the U.S. immediately after 9-11, when all other flights were grounded. Moore hints that perhaps these Saudis ought to have been detained and interrogated before they were sent on their merry way. He mentions joint investments by the Bush family and members of the Bin Laden family, intimating that the Bin Laden family might not be as estranged from Osama as previously believed, and that this, too, is cause for inquiry. Shockingly, the otherwise politically shrewd Moore seems almost completely unaware of the servile role of Saudi Arabia, and the subservience of its military, intelligence and judiciary to U.S. interests. Without the use of Saudi airspace and intelligence sharing, the "success" of both Gulf Wars, might have been in question. But no Saudi sits on the President's cabinet or in his closed circle of advisors which formulate U.S. foreign policy. Several self-described Israeli citizens, however, do sit on these boards, determining the allocation of U.S. taxpayers money. In his preoccupation with the Saudi royals' imaged role in 9-11 and his complete inattention to the very real Zionist role in the Iraq War, Moore misses the boat on who is the policymaker and who is the obsequious executor.
Sadly, the release of Fahrenheit 911 in the heat of the election summer and well after the decimation of the Iraqi population, leads one to wonder if Moore may be a dupe to the Other War Party–the Democrats.
Moore appropriately begins the film by reminding viewers of the conditions under which the "President" of the U.S. assumed office, focusing on the disenfranchisement of Black voters in several Florida counties. For readers of the NT Forum who have been following the reactionary role of Fox News in the railroading and blackballing of Muslim leaders and causes, Fahrenheit reveals an interesting point about Fox: With the polls still open on Election Day 2000, and all the major television stations broadcasting that Gore was well ahead in the Florida race, suddenly and gratuitously, the Fox News Channel announced that Bush had won that state. The other stations, embarrassed at their perceived mistake, quickly followed suit, retracting their original broadcasts and announced the putative Bush win–a win so dubious that the case eventually resulted in dozens of Congressional Hearings and ultimately wound up in the Supreme Court. But on Election Day, the announcement by Fox News of Bush's win might well have influenced results at the polls; more importantly it raised questions of whether Fox reported or fabricated the news. (For more on Fox News, see the critical documentary Outfoxed now playing in selected area theaters and available on video soon.)
In Fahrenheit 911, Moore uses humor to cover an otherwise heart-wrenching story: the story of a president who covers his own ineptitude in neglecting the national security interests of the country prior to 911 by going to war to destroy an innocent and defenseless Iraqi nation. Off over 500 members of the U.S. Congress, only one has a son or daughter in the armed forces in Iraq, says Moore, who in the movie is shown somewhat comically accosting these fast-retreating legislators before the cameras, audaciously requesting them to volunteer a son or a daughter to fight for freedom and democracy in Iraq. He rents an ice cream truck and drives around Capital Hill reading the Patriot Act over the loud speakers of the truck as a service to Congress members, who have signed away the First Amendment Rights of the people, with scarcely a glance at the text of the draconian bill they have signed.
Fahrenheit has the integrity to show extensive footage from un-embedded journalists: Iraqi children screaming with pain from napalm wounds, trucks laden down with civilian corpses, and the terror experienced by Iraqi women during house-to-house searches by U.S. soldiers. Moore's interviews with U.S. soldiers revealed the diversity of attitudes among these young men and women. One young black marine, a Muslim, said he preferred jail to being returned to Iraq to fight other people of color, who had done nothing to him. Another, a bespectacled Caucasian youth, reported that once the adrenaline was pumping, and the right music was playing in the tank or humvee, he would shoot up the enemy without qualm, preferably to the tune of "The roof is on fire..."
In a profoundly personal touch, Moore juxtaposes the bombed out areas in Iraq with scenes from his hometown of Flint, Michigan. Footage of Flint's slums with their rampant unemployment and ramshackle housing shows a striking resemblance to parts of Iraq. Ironically, this desperately poor U.S. town, and many others like it, is prime recruiting area for the U.S. military. Here, says Moore, the children of poor Blacks and Whites, who have few employment options, and often view the military as a means of paying for college, are picked up for military service–to go and kill the children of poor Iraqis.
In contrast with his clarity on the inhumanity of the war, Moore seems confused about the driving force to go to war. Through various interviews, Moore brings up the point that plans to attack Iraq were clearly laid out well before September 11. Perhaps the first quarter of the film amply emphasizes Bush's ineptitude, inaction, and his vacation panacea–when the going gets rough, the Prez goes on vacation. And Moore cuts poor Bush no breaks for going on one vacation after another early in his administration. In one scene, Bush appears in a Florida kindergarten classroom (actual footage) reading a children's book with the class as part of a photo-op. As he sits in the classroom, an aid enters to inform him that the first plane has crashed into the World Trade Center. The Commander-In-Chief remains exactly where he is in the kindergarten, calmly reading the kiddy book, with a slightly moronic look on his face. Moore's voice over explains that perhaps Bush's inaction stems from the fact that no secret service members are around to suggest an appropriate response to the President. It is clear from this and numerous other scenes that Moore might not put money on Bush's intellectual ability.
Someone more focused, agenda-driven, and amoral even than Bush had to come up with a plan to attack Iraq--in defiance of the Security Council, the U.N. General Assembly, the EU, and NATO; in contempt of traditional U.S. allies France and Germany; and in utter disregard for worldwide protests. And that someone had to be determined enough to persevere with the plan, even if no WMDs were found; even if the U.S. image and alliances throughout the world were tarnished; even if it meant years of U.S. occupation of Iraq, at costs threatening to bring down the U.S. economy; and even if it meant heightened hatred for U.S. imperial policies and increased risk of terrorist attacks on the U.S. itself. Yet the illustrious film-maker offers no suggestions as to the masterminds of such a well thought out scheme. Perhaps in consideration of his career as a Hollywood film-maker, Moore carefully sidesteps scrutiny of the political allegiances of the men formulating policy for the Bush Administration: Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, or any of the other AIPAC affiliated-Neocons to whom Bush routinely reports. Interestingly, Wolfowitz and Perle, despite their vociferous and unabashed push to attack Iraq, barely appear in the film. Instead, Administration mouth pieces--Rice, Powell, and George Dubya himself–are shown repeatedly throughout the film. They are like puppets with unseen puppeteers.
The film spends considerable time exploring links between the "Saudi" royal family and the Bush family, and the fact that numerous Saudis were permitted unencumbered exit from the U.S. immediately after 9-11, when all other flights were grounded. Moore hints that perhaps these Saudis ought to have been detained and interrogated before they were sent on their merry way. He mentions joint investments by the Bush family and members of the Bin Laden family, intimating that the Bin Laden family might not be as estranged from Osama as previously believed, and that this, too, is cause for inquiry. Shockingly, the otherwise politically shrewd Moore seems almost completely unaware of the servile role of Saudi Arabia, and the subservience of its military, intelligence and judiciary to U.S. interests. Without the use of Saudi airspace and intelligence sharing, the "success" of both Gulf Wars, might have been in question. But no Saudi sits on the President's cabinet or in his closed circle of advisors which formulate U.S. foreign policy. Several self-described Israeli citizens, however, do sit on these boards, determining the allocation of U.S. taxpayers money. In his preoccupation with the Saudi royals' imaged role in 9-11 and his complete inattention to the very real Zionist role in the Iraq War, Moore misses the boat on who is the policymaker and who is the obsequious executor.
Sadly, the release of Fahrenheit 911 in the heat of the election summer and well after the decimation of the Iraqi population, leads one to wonder if Moore may be a dupe to the Other War Party–the Democrats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)