Ladles and jellyspoons, we interrupt this programme to inform you that Sleeper Cell has found a new home at talkislam.info.
The exact website is something like www.sleepercell.talkislam.info.
We are still in the process of moving in, so the new house doesn't quite look as nice and put-together as this old one.
We here at Sleeper Cell appreciate your well wishes and support during these 18 months. We're not leaving you, just phoning in our correspondence from a different locale.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Sarah Palin is a Stupid Bitch
So says a reader from Serbia. (Yes, some of my readers are Serbs. You got a problem with that?) A reader identified only as JK writes:
"Did you see Palin's interview with Katie Couric? She said of the Pakistani people: 'They want democratic values to be allowed in their country'.
"What kind of stupid bitch is she? Democratic values are allowed in Pakistan. Pakistan is a democracy. Do not Pakistani citizens vote for members of parliament, and for the prime minister?
"Yes, you may argue that Pakistan is a fragile democracy, or not an ideal democracy - the same can be argued about the United States, where corporations and lobbyists control the government, not the people - but it is a democracy nonetheless.
"Palin simply assumes - like a lot of Americans - that since Pakistan is a Muslim country it must outlaw democratic values. Remember, Palin said that democratic values are not allowed in Pakistan.
"What kind of stupid fucking bitch is she? Goddamn, I knew the American people were dumb, but this takes the cake."
Couldn't have said it better myself, JK. If you're the authoress of the Potter novels, please share your wealth with a starving blogger in Africa.
Till then, I remain sincerely yours,
the fedster
#
"Did you see Palin's interview with Katie Couric? She said of the Pakistani people: 'They want democratic values to be allowed in their country'.
"What kind of stupid bitch is she? Democratic values are allowed in Pakistan. Pakistan is a democracy. Do not Pakistani citizens vote for members of parliament, and for the prime minister?
"Yes, you may argue that Pakistan is a fragile democracy, or not an ideal democracy - the same can be argued about the United States, where corporations and lobbyists control the government, not the people - but it is a democracy nonetheless.
"Palin simply assumes - like a lot of Americans - that since Pakistan is a Muslim country it must outlaw democratic values. Remember, Palin said that democratic values are not allowed in Pakistan.
"What kind of stupid fucking bitch is she? Goddamn, I knew the American people were dumb, but this takes the cake."
Couldn't have said it better myself, JK. If you're the authoress of the Potter novels, please share your wealth with a starving blogger in Africa.
Till then, I remain sincerely yours,
the fedster
#
Friday, September 19, 2008
Surge Not Working: UCLA study
Contrary to Barack Obama's gushing that the surge has worked "beyond our wildest dreams", a new study from UCLA confirms what experts like Patrick Cockburn have said all along: interethnic conflict in Iraq has decreased due to the actions of the Iraqis themselves. It has nothing to do with President Bush sending more racist thugs to murder and rape the Iraqi people.
This study shows that demographic shifts - largely due to ethnic cleansing - account for the recent steep drop in violence.
But let's not kid ourselves: Iraq is still a disaster. A manmade, U.S-made disaster. The rate of violent death per day there is on par with the civil war in Sri Lanka and the independence movement/insurgency in Kashmir. To put this into perspective: about 8 Kashmiris a day have been killed since 1991. That's a lot of people, Shafqat.
Link to Reuters story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080919/sc_nm/iraq_lights_dc
Full text for when link rot occurs:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Satellite images taken at night show heavily Sunni Arab neighborhoods of Baghdad began emptying before a U.S. troop surge in 2007, graphic evidence of ethnic cleansing that preceded a drop in violence, according to a report published on Friday.
The images support the view of international refugee organizations and Iraq experts that a major population shift was a key factor in the decline in sectarian violence, particularly in the Iraqi capital, the epicenter of the bloodletting in which hundreds of thousands were killed.
Minority Sunni Arabs were driven out of many neighborhoods by Shi'ite militants enraged by the bombing of the Samarra mosque in February 2006. The bombing, blamed on the Sunni militant group al Qaeda, sparked a wave of sectarian violence.
"By the launch of the surge, many of the targets of conflict had either been killed or fled the country, and they turned off the lights when they left," geography professor John Agnew of the University of California Los Angeles, who led the study, said in a statement.
"Essentially, our interpretation is that violence has declined in Baghdad because of intercommunal violence that reached a climax as the surge was beginning," said Agnew, who studies ethnic conflict.
Some 2 million Iraqis are displaced within Iraq, while 2 million more have sought refuge in neighboring Syria and Jordan. Previously religiously mixed neighborhoods of Baghdad became homogenized Sunni or Shi'ite Muslim enclaves.
The study, published in the journal Environment and Planning A, provides more evidence of ethnic conflict in Iraq, which peaked just before U.S. President George W. Bush ordered the deployment of about 30,000 extra U.S. troops.
The extent to which the troop build-up helped halt Iraq's slide into sectarian civil war has been debated, particularly in the United States, with supporters of the surge saying it was the main contributing factor, and others arguing it was simply one of a number of factors.
"Our findings suggest that the surge has had no observable effect, except insofar as it has helped to provide a seal of approval for a process of ethno-sectarian neighborhood homogenization that is now largely achieved," Agnew's team wrote in their report.
Agnew's team used publicly available infrared night imagery from a weather satellite operated by the U.S. Air Force.
"The overall night light signature of Baghdad since the U.S. invasion appears to have increased between 2003 and 2006 and then declined dramatically from 20 March 2006 through 16 December 2007," their report said.
They said the night lights of Shi'ite-dominated Sadr City remained constant, as did lights in the Green Zone government and diplomatic compound in central Baghdad. Lights increased in the eastern New Baghdad district, another Shi'ite enclave.
Satellite studies have also been used to help document forced relocations in Myanmar and ethnic cleansing in Uganda.
(Reporting by Maggie Fox, editing by Ross Colvin)
#
This study shows that demographic shifts - largely due to ethnic cleansing - account for the recent steep drop in violence.
But let's not kid ourselves: Iraq is still a disaster. A manmade, U.S-made disaster. The rate of violent death per day there is on par with the civil war in Sri Lanka and the independence movement/insurgency in Kashmir. To put this into perspective: about 8 Kashmiris a day have been killed since 1991. That's a lot of people, Shafqat.
Link to Reuters story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080919/sc_nm/iraq_lights_dc
Full text for when link rot occurs:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Satellite images taken at night show heavily Sunni Arab neighborhoods of Baghdad began emptying before a U.S. troop surge in 2007, graphic evidence of ethnic cleansing that preceded a drop in violence, according to a report published on Friday.
The images support the view of international refugee organizations and Iraq experts that a major population shift was a key factor in the decline in sectarian violence, particularly in the Iraqi capital, the epicenter of the bloodletting in which hundreds of thousands were killed.
Minority Sunni Arabs were driven out of many neighborhoods by Shi'ite militants enraged by the bombing of the Samarra mosque in February 2006. The bombing, blamed on the Sunni militant group al Qaeda, sparked a wave of sectarian violence.
"By the launch of the surge, many of the targets of conflict had either been killed or fled the country, and they turned off the lights when they left," geography professor John Agnew of the University of California Los Angeles, who led the study, said in a statement.
"Essentially, our interpretation is that violence has declined in Baghdad because of intercommunal violence that reached a climax as the surge was beginning," said Agnew, who studies ethnic conflict.
Some 2 million Iraqis are displaced within Iraq, while 2 million more have sought refuge in neighboring Syria and Jordan. Previously religiously mixed neighborhoods of Baghdad became homogenized Sunni or Shi'ite Muslim enclaves.
The study, published in the journal Environment and Planning A, provides more evidence of ethnic conflict in Iraq, which peaked just before U.S. President George W. Bush ordered the deployment of about 30,000 extra U.S. troops.
The extent to which the troop build-up helped halt Iraq's slide into sectarian civil war has been debated, particularly in the United States, with supporters of the surge saying it was the main contributing factor, and others arguing it was simply one of a number of factors.
"Our findings suggest that the surge has had no observable effect, except insofar as it has helped to provide a seal of approval for a process of ethno-sectarian neighborhood homogenization that is now largely achieved," Agnew's team wrote in their report.
Agnew's team used publicly available infrared night imagery from a weather satellite operated by the U.S. Air Force.
"The overall night light signature of Baghdad since the U.S. invasion appears to have increased between 2003 and 2006 and then declined dramatically from 20 March 2006 through 16 December 2007," their report said.
They said the night lights of Shi'ite-dominated Sadr City remained constant, as did lights in the Green Zone government and diplomatic compound in central Baghdad. Lights increased in the eastern New Baghdad district, another Shi'ite enclave.
Satellite studies have also been used to help document forced relocations in Myanmar and ethnic cleansing in Uganda.
(Reporting by Maggie Fox, editing by Ross Colvin)
#
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Black Man: Israeli "Security" Made Me Dance
Another one from the Associated Press. I love it when people are singled out for their ethnicity (see post below about Pakistani woman in the U.S.).
This guy is a dancer engaged to a Jewish girl who has a lot of family in Israel. His dad is Muslim. His first name is Muslim. He arrives at Ben-Gurion Airport in Israel.
Yeah, some dance troupe from the States is going to sneak in a terrorist. Yup, this is what the world has come to.
As someone who has been through Israeli airport "security" a number of times, Mr. Jackson should be glad he was only made to dance.
September 9, 2008 - 2:27pm
By JOSEF FEDERMAN Associated Press Writer
JERUSALEM (AP) - A performer with the famed Alvin Ailey dance troupe on Tuesday said he was twice forced to perform steps for Israeli airport security officers to prove his identity before he was permitted to enter the country.
Abdur-Rahim Jackson, an eight-year veteran of the dance ensemble, said he was singled out by Israel's renowned airport security because he has a Muslim name. He called the experience embarrassing and said at one point, one of the officers even suggested he change his name.
"To be greeted like this because of my name, it took me back a little bit," said Jackson, who is black.
Israel is the first stop on a six-nation tour celebrating the New York-based dance company's 50th anniversary. Earlier this year, Congress passed a resolution calling the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater a "vital American cultural ambassador to the world."
Jackson said he was pulled aside from other members of the troupe when they arrived at Israel's international airport on Sunday night. He said he was taken to a holding room, where he was asked about the origins of his name. When he explained he was part of the dance group, he was asked to perform.
"I stood up. I asked what type of dance?" he explained. "He said, "Just do anything.' I just moved around."
Minutes later, he said a female officer put him through a similar interrogation and asked him to dance again.
"The only time I'm really expected to dance is when I'm performing," he said.
Jackson said he received his name because his father was a convert to Islam. Jackson said he was not raised a Muslim, does not consider himself religious and is engaged to a Jewish woman in the troupe who has relatives in Israel.
Jackson said he did not plan to press the matter further, saying the numerous apologies he has received from American dignitaries and his Israeli hosts is "enough for me." The Israel Ports Authority said it had no comment because it did not receive a formal complaint.
The incident was reported in Israel's largest newspaper and on an Israeli television news and interview program. "The security guards should be sent home or (the airport) will become a mental asylum," said Motti Kirshenbaum, a veteran commentator and host of the Channel 10 TV program.
Israel is constantly on the alert for attack because of the Israel-Palestinian conflict and extremist Islamic rejection of the Jewish state's existence. Security is strict at all entry points and inside the country.
=====
What about Israel's extremist rejection of a Palestinian state's existence? Wonder why the AP writer forgot to mention that.
#
This guy is a dancer engaged to a Jewish girl who has a lot of family in Israel. His dad is Muslim. His first name is Muslim. He arrives at Ben-Gurion Airport in Israel.
Yeah, some dance troupe from the States is going to sneak in a terrorist. Yup, this is what the world has come to.
As someone who has been through Israeli airport "security" a number of times, Mr. Jackson should be glad he was only made to dance.
September 9, 2008 - 2:27pm
By JOSEF FEDERMAN Associated Press Writer
JERUSALEM (AP) - A performer with the famed Alvin Ailey dance troupe on Tuesday said he was twice forced to perform steps for Israeli airport security officers to prove his identity before he was permitted to enter the country.
Abdur-Rahim Jackson, an eight-year veteran of the dance ensemble, said he was singled out by Israel's renowned airport security because he has a Muslim name. He called the experience embarrassing and said at one point, one of the officers even suggested he change his name.
"To be greeted like this because of my name, it took me back a little bit," said Jackson, who is black.
Israel is the first stop on a six-nation tour celebrating the New York-based dance company's 50th anniversary. Earlier this year, Congress passed a resolution calling the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater a "vital American cultural ambassador to the world."
Jackson said he was pulled aside from other members of the troupe when they arrived at Israel's international airport on Sunday night. He said he was taken to a holding room, where he was asked about the origins of his name. When he explained he was part of the dance group, he was asked to perform.
"I stood up. I asked what type of dance?" he explained. "He said, "Just do anything.' I just moved around."
Minutes later, he said a female officer put him through a similar interrogation and asked him to dance again.
"The only time I'm really expected to dance is when I'm performing," he said.
Jackson said he received his name because his father was a convert to Islam. Jackson said he was not raised a Muslim, does not consider himself religious and is engaged to a Jewish woman in the troupe who has relatives in Israel.
Jackson said he did not plan to press the matter further, saying the numerous apologies he has received from American dignitaries and his Israeli hosts is "enough for me." The Israel Ports Authority said it had no comment because it did not receive a formal complaint.
The incident was reported in Israel's largest newspaper and on an Israeli television news and interview program. "The security guards should be sent home or (the airport) will become a mental asylum," said Motti Kirshenbaum, a veteran commentator and host of the Channel 10 TV program.
Israel is constantly on the alert for attack because of the Israel-Palestinian conflict and extremist Islamic rejection of the Jewish state's existence. Security is strict at all entry points and inside the country.
=====
What about Israel's extremist rejection of a Palestinian state's existence? Wonder why the AP writer forgot to mention that.
#
Pregnant Pakistani Woman Denied Right to Board U.S. Plane
The year was 2006. America was at its most ignorant and bullying self (wait, that's today - uh, never mind, skip the intro).
A Pakistani woman is now suing US Airways after she was detained, while pregnant, for 9 1/2 hours in 2006 because she had facial cream in her carry-on luggage. Rather than discard the cream and let her board the plane, "security officials" detained her without counsel and illegally searched her apartment. Eventually she was released and had to drive to her destination.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080905/wv_terminal_evacuated.html?.v=1
Of course, US Airways has no comment.
Full story from Associated Press:
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) -- A Pakistan native barred from boarding a US Airways flight at West Virginia's Tri-State Airport two years ago is suing the Tempe-based airline, claiming her constitutional and civil rights were violated.
Rima Qayyum, who now lives in Jackson, Mich., was detained at the airport security line in August 2006 because she had a water bottle and face cream in her carry-on luggage.
Qayyum was traveling a week after U.S. authorities banned the carrying of liquids onto flights. The ban came after British officials made arrests in what they said was a plot to blow up U.S.-bound planes using explosives disguised as drinks and other common products.
Qayyum was interrogated for 9 1/2 hours after airport authorities tested the items and found traces of explosive substances, but the lawsuit alleges the test results were false positives. Results of a later laboratory test were negative.
The lawsuit states that Qayyum was targeted because of her ethnicity.
"US Airways had no legitimate nondiscriminatory reason to believe that Plaintiff posed any security risk," the lawsuit alleges.
"US Airways should have known, trained and instructed its employees, agents and/or representatives to be aware that treating someone differently on the basis of their perceived race, ethnicity, religion and/or national origin is wrong," it says.
While Qayyum was being questioned, she was "denied access to counsel, was illegally detained, an illegal search of her apartment was made and she suffered great emotional distress, worry, anxiety for her health and for the health of her unborn child," the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit says she was carrying the water because she was 4 1/2 months pregnant. It also alleges that liquids found in the carry-on bags of other passengers were discarded.
Because of the incident, the terminal was evacuated and kept closed for more than nine hours.
Qayyum eventually drove to her Michigan destination.
The complaint, filed Aug. 14 in U.S. District Court in Huntington, alleges that US Airways "acted intentionally and/or recklessly when it chose to deny her entrance to its aircraft" and that the airline's "conduct was extreme and outrageous."
The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction directing the airline to take affirmative steps to remedy illegal discriminatory conduct. It also seeks reasonable attorney fees and costs, and damages and other relief in an amount to be determined at trial.
Valerie Wunder, a spokeswoman for Tempe, Ariz.-based US Airways, declined to comment Thursday.
#
A Pakistani woman is now suing US Airways after she was detained, while pregnant, for 9 1/2 hours in 2006 because she had facial cream in her carry-on luggage. Rather than discard the cream and let her board the plane, "security officials" detained her without counsel and illegally searched her apartment. Eventually she was released and had to drive to her destination.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080905/wv_terminal_evacuated.html?.v=1
Of course, US Airways has no comment.
Full story from Associated Press:
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) -- A Pakistan native barred from boarding a US Airways flight at West Virginia's Tri-State Airport two years ago is suing the Tempe-based airline, claiming her constitutional and civil rights were violated.
Rima Qayyum, who now lives in Jackson, Mich., was detained at the airport security line in August 2006 because she had a water bottle and face cream in her carry-on luggage.
Qayyum was traveling a week after U.S. authorities banned the carrying of liquids onto flights. The ban came after British officials made arrests in what they said was a plot to blow up U.S.-bound planes using explosives disguised as drinks and other common products.
Qayyum was interrogated for 9 1/2 hours after airport authorities tested the items and found traces of explosive substances, but the lawsuit alleges the test results were false positives. Results of a later laboratory test were negative.
The lawsuit states that Qayyum was targeted because of her ethnicity.
"US Airways had no legitimate nondiscriminatory reason to believe that Plaintiff posed any security risk," the lawsuit alleges.
"US Airways should have known, trained and instructed its employees, agents and/or representatives to be aware that treating someone differently on the basis of their perceived race, ethnicity, religion and/or national origin is wrong," it says.
While Qayyum was being questioned, she was "denied access to counsel, was illegally detained, an illegal search of her apartment was made and she suffered great emotional distress, worry, anxiety for her health and for the health of her unborn child," the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit says she was carrying the water because she was 4 1/2 months pregnant. It also alleges that liquids found in the carry-on bags of other passengers were discarded.
Because of the incident, the terminal was evacuated and kept closed for more than nine hours.
Qayyum eventually drove to her Michigan destination.
The complaint, filed Aug. 14 in U.S. District Court in Huntington, alleges that US Airways "acted intentionally and/or recklessly when it chose to deny her entrance to its aircraft" and that the airline's "conduct was extreme and outrageous."
The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction directing the airline to take affirmative steps to remedy illegal discriminatory conduct. It also seeks reasonable attorney fees and costs, and damages and other relief in an amount to be determined at trial.
Valerie Wunder, a spokeswoman for Tempe, Ariz.-based US Airways, declined to comment Thursday.
#
Q&A Correspondence on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Regarding the question of Palestinian nonviolence, and the question of a one-state solution versus the popular two-state solution, reader "fayruzz" in London writes:
Dear Sleeper Cell,
I've found that some of the best analysis and explanation of the conflict comes from open dialogues. Even e-mail dialogues. Here is a recent exchange between me and an American Kenyan friend of mine. He is learning about the conflict, is trying to be partial to the Palestinian point of view, but is sceptical of Palestinians as a whole. You might say he tends to buy too much into the American media's version of things (which we both know is insane).
Here's his letter, followed by my longish reply. This is a slapdash e-mail, of course, and perhaps with a little editing it could be a proper essay. I didn't double-check the statistics, so they may not be exact. Like I said, with proper editing and footnoting and cross-checking, this could be a real essay. Nonetheless, I think in its present form it still covers a lot of relevant ground, and your readers may find it useful.
=====
Kenyan American's message regarding Jeff Halpern's recent article [fedster's note: see two blog posts below for highlights of Halpern's article, not that you need it to understand this correspondence]:
Interesting. I'll admit I don't hear Palestinians saying they're being unfair to Israelis. The question that is still unanswered for me is what to do to get a one or two state solution. I'll admit I don't know of a solution. I do think armed resistance is counterproductive. Even if you can get over moral qualms, the disparity of arms is too great. You told me that there are multitudes of Moderate palestian intellectuals who are not being heard. Why is that? I knew of Desmond Tutu and the 60's knew Martin Luther king and SNIC. Is it all on the western media or does some of the blame rest on Palestinians for not championing such leaders enough. I really want to know.
=====
Reader fayruzz's "longish" reply [let me, the fedster, know if this correspondence is useful after all]:
k-man, i hope you read this and think it through. you might have to read it in sections over two to three sitting. if it's too boring to read, lemme know, and i'll do it in person when i come to america next month. don't be afraid to ask tough questions.
the best thing, i think, is to work for a one-state solution. israel is accidentally doing more than anyone else to make this a reality: they are gobbling up so much palestinian land, leaving it in such non-contiguous chunks, that an independent palestinian state is impossible now.
israel has already carved the west bank up into over 140 separate island cantons. these 140 separate cantons can never be united into a state for the main reason that israel won't let them: they insist on jewish-only bypass roads and israeli settlements to remain in between palestinian towns and neighbourhoods. thus territorial contiguity is an impossibility.
i first heard of this theory way back in 1997 - it was obvious even then - from the dean of jerusalem university, sari nusseibeh. and this brings me to your second question: who are the pali intellectuals opposing violence? dr. sari nusseibeh is but one of hundreds. he has a ph.d in philosophy from oxford and has lived in jerusalem his whole life (but for a handful years studying in england).
dr. nusseibeh is a lifelong member of the PLO. the new yorker did a big feature on him in 2002 called "why is nobody listening to the PLO's voice of reason?" detailing his pacifist platform (he calls for "christlike response and restraint" to israeli violence), his tremendous support and respect among the palestinians, and israel's refusal to deal with him. israel has jailed him several times on ridiculous charges - he's never been convicted of anything - and he's always eventually let go from prison after a few weeks and no trial.
the big three among the palis: nusseibeh, hanan ashrawi (a woman, and a christian, and a ph.d from university of virginia), and dr. haider abdel-shafi (a physician from gaza), are all famous (nonviolent) intellectuals whom the palis chose as their negotiating team to deal directly with the israelis at the madrid peace conference in 1991.
george bush, sr. accepted this team of famous (nonviolent) pali intellectuals, as did secretary of state james baker. however, israel made the absurd condition that they would only attend the madrid peace conference if the palestinians were not represented. bush and baker relented.
so, the 1991 madrid peace conference had the jordanians negotiating on behalf of the palestinians, as per israeli demands. ultimately, no deal was reached because israel's government was conducting secret back-door negotiations with arafat and his cronies in norway (these became the famous "oslo accords").
probably the most famous pali (nonviolent) intellectual was edward said, professor of literature at columbia university till his death in 2003. he was new york's most famous pali, america's most famous pali; when he died on 25 sept '03 (i had just finished day shift, i remember), the new york times wrote nearly a full-page obituary for him. he published more than a dozen books during his lifetime on the question of palestine and is recommended reading in every university class dealing with the history of the conflict.
additionally, there are literally hundreds of other nonviolent palestinian movements. rachel corrie, a white american chick from washington state, was a member of one of these when she was crushed to death by an isaeli bulldozer during a nonviolent protest in 2003. (this cold-blooded murder, witnessed by at least 10 europeans and north americans, got almost no coverage in the u.s. media, though alan rickman, the british jewish actor who played the villain in die hard and kevin costner's robin hood, directed a play about rachel corrie that toured the u.s. and even was performing in peru while we were there for dylan's wedding.)
for more info on the literally dozens of palestinian nonviolent movements, go to the blog: http://www.sleepercellayearehcue.blogspot.com/ and look on the left-hand sidebar for links to several of them.
some of the other palestinian nonviolent political parties include those run by mustafa barghouti, a famous west bank intellectual well-known in europe (but somehow totally invisible in the u.s.). also, azmi bishara, a palestinian with israeli citizenship who served several terms in the knesset (israel's parliament).
i suppose a foreigner could ask: where are the american voices championing withdrawal from iraq? where are those american leaders denouncing the war crimes and rapes our soldiers have committed in iraq? neither pelosi nor obama have raised a voice against any of these atrocities. are we then to conclude that americans condone, or are happy with, these crimes?
second, hamas is, paradoxically, the only palestinian political party to have wrenched any concessions from israel. this has been the subject of countless israeli commentaries appearing in their newspapers, as well as in the new york review of books and the london review of books. it's nearly 1:30 in the morning, so i'll not bore you with those details. my point is, the only group that really supports armed struggle is surprisingly the only one getting israel to alter its policies.
i know you don't believe this - and again, let me stress that i have never supported hamas ideologically or otherwise - but i'll give you a short (half-page) article from a recent london review of books, written by an israeli political analyst, that describes this in more detail.
so: i don't believe that armed struggle will work, and neither do a huge majority (i almost wrote "99%") of palestinians. the number carrying out attacks against israel is incredibly small. there have been no attacks against israel since the hamas-israeli ceasefire of june. (yet israel has continued to murder palestinians, but that's another story.) how many suicide bombings have occurred in the last 2-3 years? i think only one, maybe two. in that time, israel has bombed the hell out of a lot of the gaza strip, killing over 100 people in june 2006 alone.
remember: when israel kills palestinians and the palis don't respond, the american newspapers call it "a lull in violence in the region". when one or two palis fire a rocket into empty desert land in israel, or when there is a suicide bombing that actually kills someone, then suddenly "the region is unstable", and israel "grudgingly retaliates to the flareup in violence".
but once again, nonviolence is the answer, and palis clearly know this and practise this in overwhelming numbers. read the jeff halper article again.
and lastly, i find it interesting that you demand such tremendous christlike behaviour and perfection of the palestinians and make no such demands on israel. as norman finkelstein (son of holocaust survivors, ph.d in poli sci from princeton) asks, why does the world ask only that palestinians take the moral high ground?
=====
Dear Sleeper Cell,
I've found that some of the best analysis and explanation of the conflict comes from open dialogues. Even e-mail dialogues. Here is a recent exchange between me and an American Kenyan friend of mine. He is learning about the conflict, is trying to be partial to the Palestinian point of view, but is sceptical of Palestinians as a whole. You might say he tends to buy too much into the American media's version of things (which we both know is insane).
Here's his letter, followed by my longish reply. This is a slapdash e-mail, of course, and perhaps with a little editing it could be a proper essay. I didn't double-check the statistics, so they may not be exact. Like I said, with proper editing and footnoting and cross-checking, this could be a real essay. Nonetheless, I think in its present form it still covers a lot of relevant ground, and your readers may find it useful.
=====
Kenyan American's message regarding Jeff Halpern's recent article [fedster's note: see two blog posts below for highlights of Halpern's article, not that you need it to understand this correspondence]:
Interesting. I'll admit I don't hear Palestinians saying they're being unfair to Israelis. The question that is still unanswered for me is what to do to get a one or two state solution. I'll admit I don't know of a solution. I do think armed resistance is counterproductive. Even if you can get over moral qualms, the disparity of arms is too great. You told me that there are multitudes of Moderate palestian intellectuals who are not being heard. Why is that? I knew of Desmond Tutu and the 60's knew Martin Luther king and SNIC. Is it all on the western media or does some of the blame rest on Palestinians for not championing such leaders enough. I really want to know.
=====
Reader fayruzz's "longish" reply [let me, the fedster, know if this correspondence is useful after all]:
k-man, i hope you read this and think it through. you might have to read it in sections over two to three sitting. if it's too boring to read, lemme know, and i'll do it in person when i come to america next month. don't be afraid to ask tough questions.
the best thing, i think, is to work for a one-state solution. israel is accidentally doing more than anyone else to make this a reality: they are gobbling up so much palestinian land, leaving it in such non-contiguous chunks, that an independent palestinian state is impossible now.
israel has already carved the west bank up into over 140 separate island cantons. these 140 separate cantons can never be united into a state for the main reason that israel won't let them: they insist on jewish-only bypass roads and israeli settlements to remain in between palestinian towns and neighbourhoods. thus territorial contiguity is an impossibility.
i first heard of this theory way back in 1997 - it was obvious even then - from the dean of jerusalem university, sari nusseibeh. and this brings me to your second question: who are the pali intellectuals opposing violence? dr. sari nusseibeh is but one of hundreds. he has a ph.d in philosophy from oxford and has lived in jerusalem his whole life (but for a handful years studying in england).
dr. nusseibeh is a lifelong member of the PLO. the new yorker did a big feature on him in 2002 called "why is nobody listening to the PLO's voice of reason?" detailing his pacifist platform (he calls for "christlike response and restraint" to israeli violence), his tremendous support and respect among the palestinians, and israel's refusal to deal with him. israel has jailed him several times on ridiculous charges - he's never been convicted of anything - and he's always eventually let go from prison after a few weeks and no trial.
the big three among the palis: nusseibeh, hanan ashrawi (a woman, and a christian, and a ph.d from university of virginia), and dr. haider abdel-shafi (a physician from gaza), are all famous (nonviolent) intellectuals whom the palis chose as their negotiating team to deal directly with the israelis at the madrid peace conference in 1991.
george bush, sr. accepted this team of famous (nonviolent) pali intellectuals, as did secretary of state james baker. however, israel made the absurd condition that they would only attend the madrid peace conference if the palestinians were not represented. bush and baker relented.
so, the 1991 madrid peace conference had the jordanians negotiating on behalf of the palestinians, as per israeli demands. ultimately, no deal was reached because israel's government was conducting secret back-door negotiations with arafat and his cronies in norway (these became the famous "oslo accords").
probably the most famous pali (nonviolent) intellectual was edward said, professor of literature at columbia university till his death in 2003. he was new york's most famous pali, america's most famous pali; when he died on 25 sept '03 (i had just finished day shift, i remember), the new york times wrote nearly a full-page obituary for him. he published more than a dozen books during his lifetime on the question of palestine and is recommended reading in every university class dealing with the history of the conflict.
additionally, there are literally hundreds of other nonviolent palestinian movements. rachel corrie, a white american chick from washington state, was a member of one of these when she was crushed to death by an isaeli bulldozer during a nonviolent protest in 2003. (this cold-blooded murder, witnessed by at least 10 europeans and north americans, got almost no coverage in the u.s. media, though alan rickman, the british jewish actor who played the villain in die hard and kevin costner's robin hood, directed a play about rachel corrie that toured the u.s. and even was performing in peru while we were there for dylan's wedding.)
for more info on the literally dozens of palestinian nonviolent movements, go to the blog: http://www.sleepercellayearehcue.blogspot.com/ and look on the left-hand sidebar for links to several of them.
some of the other palestinian nonviolent political parties include those run by mustafa barghouti, a famous west bank intellectual well-known in europe (but somehow totally invisible in the u.s.). also, azmi bishara, a palestinian with israeli citizenship who served several terms in the knesset (israel's parliament).
i suppose a foreigner could ask: where are the american voices championing withdrawal from iraq? where are those american leaders denouncing the war crimes and rapes our soldiers have committed in iraq? neither pelosi nor obama have raised a voice against any of these atrocities. are we then to conclude that americans condone, or are happy with, these crimes?
second, hamas is, paradoxically, the only palestinian political party to have wrenched any concessions from israel. this has been the subject of countless israeli commentaries appearing in their newspapers, as well as in the new york review of books and the london review of books. it's nearly 1:30 in the morning, so i'll not bore you with those details. my point is, the only group that really supports armed struggle is surprisingly the only one getting israel to alter its policies.
i know you don't believe this - and again, let me stress that i have never supported hamas ideologically or otherwise - but i'll give you a short (half-page) article from a recent london review of books, written by an israeli political analyst, that describes this in more detail.
so: i don't believe that armed struggle will work, and neither do a huge majority (i almost wrote "99%") of palestinians. the number carrying out attacks against israel is incredibly small. there have been no attacks against israel since the hamas-israeli ceasefire of june. (yet israel has continued to murder palestinians, but that's another story.) how many suicide bombings have occurred in the last 2-3 years? i think only one, maybe two. in that time, israel has bombed the hell out of a lot of the gaza strip, killing over 100 people in june 2006 alone.
remember: when israel kills palestinians and the palis don't respond, the american newspapers call it "a lull in violence in the region". when one or two palis fire a rocket into empty desert land in israel, or when there is a suicide bombing that actually kills someone, then suddenly "the region is unstable", and israel "grudgingly retaliates to the flareup in violence".
but once again, nonviolence is the answer, and palis clearly know this and practise this in overwhelming numbers. read the jeff halper article again.
and lastly, i find it interesting that you demand such tremendous christlike behaviour and perfection of the palestinians and make no such demands on israel. as norman finkelstein (son of holocaust survivors, ph.d in poli sci from princeton) asks, why does the world ask only that palestinians take the moral high ground?
=====
Monday, September 8, 2008
Evidence Contradicts US Denials in Afghan Airstrike
After weeks of denials by our government, there is finally no doubt: more than 90 Afghan civilians, at least 75 of them children or women, were killed by an American bombing frenzy in Azizabad on 22 August.
Carlotta Gall of the The New York Times parses through the evidence in a courageous article and comes to this conclusion. She is supported by various NGOs in the region, several human rights organisations, intelligence officials, local physicians, and a UN special investigation into the U.S. bombing.
You'll recall that our military has insisted for weeks that only 5-7 civilians died. Some of our honest American officials even went so far as to say that local Afghans fabricated false graves in order to paint the U.S. in a bad light. (Does this remind anyone of Israeli claims that the Lebanese were digging empty "show" graves in 2006 after indiscriminate Israeli bombings killed hundreds of children?)
Check it out for yourself with this link-rot-avoiding secondary link:
http://www.truthout.org/article/evidence-contradicts-us-denials-afghan-airstrike
#
Carlotta Gall of the The New York Times parses through the evidence in a courageous article and comes to this conclusion. She is supported by various NGOs in the region, several human rights organisations, intelligence officials, local physicians, and a UN special investigation into the U.S. bombing.
You'll recall that our military has insisted for weeks that only 5-7 civilians died. Some of our honest American officials even went so far as to say that local Afghans fabricated false graves in order to paint the U.S. in a bad light. (Does this remind anyone of Israeli claims that the Lebanese were digging empty "show" graves in 2006 after indiscriminate Israeli bombings killed hundreds of children?)
Check it out for yourself with this link-rot-avoiding secondary link:
http://www.truthout.org/article/evidence-contradicts-us-denials-afghan-airstrike
#
Saturday, September 6, 2008
An Israeli Tells the Truth About Gaza
There's no way to put this mildly: this is the best article on Gaza I've read in the last five years. In fact, it's probably the best article I've read on the entire conflict in the last five years.
Jeff Halper is an Israeli activist. I'll leave it at that for now. Here's an excerpt from his article describing his recent visit to Gaza. Link to full article below this excerpt:
To be honest, we Israeli Jews are the problem. The Palestinian years ago accepted our existence in the country as a people and are willing to accept ANY solution -- two states, onestate, no state, whatever. It is us who want exclusivity over the "Land of Israel" who cannot conceive of a single country, who cannot accept the national presence of Palestinians (we talk about "Arabs" in our country),and who have eliminated by our settlements even the possibility of the two-state solution in which we take 80% of the land.
So it's sad, truly sad, that our "enemies" want peace and co-existence (and tell me that in HEBREW) and we don't. Yeah, we Israeli Jews want "peace," but in the meantime what we have -- almost no attacks, a feeling of security, a"disappeared" Palestinian people, a booming economy, tourism and ever-improving international status -- seems just fine. If "peace" means giving up settlements, land and control, why do it? What's wrong with thestatus quo? If it's not broken, don't fix it.
===
Halper continues:
When I was in Gaza everyone in Israel -- including the media who interviewed me -- warned me to be careful, to watch out for my life. Aren't you scared? they asked. Well, the only time I felt genuine and palpable fear during the entire journey was when I got back to Israel.
I went from Gaza through the Erez checkpoint because I wanted to make thepoint that the siege is not only by sea. On the Israeli side I wasimmediately arrested, charged with violating a military order prohibiting Israelis from being in Gaza and jailed at the Shikma prison in Ashkelon. In my cell that night, someone recognized from the news. All night I was physically threatened by right-wing Israelis -- and I was sure I wouldn't make it till the morning.
Ironically, there were three Palestinians in my cell who kind of protected me, so the danger was from Israelis, not Palestinians, in Gaza as well as in Israel. (One Palestinian from Hebron was in jail for being illegally in Israel; I was in jail for beingillegally in Palestine.) As it stands, I'm out on bail. The state will probably press charges in the next few weeks, and I could be jailed for two or so months.
===
Me, the Fedster, talking again:
I can't tell you how much Halper's visit to Gaza mirrors my own (except I wasn't arrested, and no one spoke to me in Hebrew, except the rifle-toting Israeli soldiers who had bad breath). Gazans - and Palestinians in general - are very interested in a peaceful solution to the conflict. According to my own independent poll conducted in 1997, nearly 80% of Gazans wanted a future of peaceful co-existence with Israelis in one state, with the same laws applied equally to all citizens regardless of race, religion, or nationality.
One of my Venezuelan Jewish friends also visited in Gaza in the year 2002, and she had a similar experience. Israeli soldiers tried to prevent her from entering the territory, claiming that "those Mozzlims will kill you", but when she entered, she found the exact opposite to be true. Gazans were welcoming, friendly, and eager to discuss peaceful solutions. Israelis, on the other hand, cursed her for visiting Gaza, calling her a traitor - this just for visiting and talking to Gazan civilians. When she returned to Israel, one of the Israeli soldiers spit on her.
Link to Halper's full article:
http://www.icahd.org/eng/articles.asp?menu=6&submenu=2&article=505
Jeff Halper is Director of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions: www.icahd.org
He is a member of the Free Gaza movement: www.freegaza.org
Jeff Halper is an Israeli activist. I'll leave it at that for now. Here's an excerpt from his article describing his recent visit to Gaza. Link to full article below this excerpt:
To be honest, we Israeli Jews are the problem. The Palestinian years ago accepted our existence in the country as a people and are willing to accept ANY solution -- two states, onestate, no state, whatever. It is us who want exclusivity over the "Land of Israel" who cannot conceive of a single country, who cannot accept the national presence of Palestinians (we talk about "Arabs" in our country),and who have eliminated by our settlements even the possibility of the two-state solution in which we take 80% of the land.
So it's sad, truly sad, that our "enemies" want peace and co-existence (and tell me that in HEBREW) and we don't. Yeah, we Israeli Jews want "peace," but in the meantime what we have -- almost no attacks, a feeling of security, a"disappeared" Palestinian people, a booming economy, tourism and ever-improving international status -- seems just fine. If "peace" means giving up settlements, land and control, why do it? What's wrong with thestatus quo? If it's not broken, don't fix it.
===
Halper continues:
When I was in Gaza everyone in Israel -- including the media who interviewed me -- warned me to be careful, to watch out for my life. Aren't you scared? they asked. Well, the only time I felt genuine and palpable fear during the entire journey was when I got back to Israel.
I went from Gaza through the Erez checkpoint because I wanted to make thepoint that the siege is not only by sea. On the Israeli side I wasimmediately arrested, charged with violating a military order prohibiting Israelis from being in Gaza and jailed at the Shikma prison in Ashkelon. In my cell that night, someone recognized from the news. All night I was physically threatened by right-wing Israelis -- and I was sure I wouldn't make it till the morning.
Ironically, there were three Palestinians in my cell who kind of protected me, so the danger was from Israelis, not Palestinians, in Gaza as well as in Israel. (One Palestinian from Hebron was in jail for being illegally in Israel; I was in jail for beingillegally in Palestine.) As it stands, I'm out on bail. The state will probably press charges in the next few weeks, and I could be jailed for two or so months.
===
Me, the Fedster, talking again:
I can't tell you how much Halper's visit to Gaza mirrors my own (except I wasn't arrested, and no one spoke to me in Hebrew, except the rifle-toting Israeli soldiers who had bad breath). Gazans - and Palestinians in general - are very interested in a peaceful solution to the conflict. According to my own independent poll conducted in 1997, nearly 80% of Gazans wanted a future of peaceful co-existence with Israelis in one state, with the same laws applied equally to all citizens regardless of race, religion, or nationality.
One of my Venezuelan Jewish friends also visited in Gaza in the year 2002, and she had a similar experience. Israeli soldiers tried to prevent her from entering the territory, claiming that "those Mozzlims will kill you", but when she entered, she found the exact opposite to be true. Gazans were welcoming, friendly, and eager to discuss peaceful solutions. Israelis, on the other hand, cursed her for visiting Gaza, calling her a traitor - this just for visiting and talking to Gazan civilians. When she returned to Israel, one of the Israeli soldiers spit on her.
Link to Halper's full article:
http://www.icahd.org/eng/articles.asp?menu=6&submenu=2&article=505
Jeff Halper is Director of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions: www.icahd.org
He is a member of the Free Gaza movement: www.freegaza.org
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Katrina, Desi Style: India's Untouchables Left to Die During Recent Flood
During recent floods in India that have made over 1.2 million homeless, caste prejudice has reared its ugly head. Reports of Dalits, or "untouchables", being stranded and left to die in their homes have become widespread.
Gavin Rabinowitz of the Associated Press reports in some detail. Despite protestations from India's government that Dalit villages were being ignored by rescue boats, "only a single boat of Dalits had come in during all of Sunday afternoon even though they make up more than half the region's people."
Personal testimony by Dalits whose entire families were left behind to die are especially poignant.
Emerging powers like China and India are making runaway economic progress, but their social progress has often lagged far behind. India's recent conversions of millions of Dalits from Hinduism to Buddhism (despite government attempts to halt such conversions) , as well as the government-directed anti-Muslim pogroms of 2002 that killed thousands of innocents, have shown just how far the country has to go before beginning to approach Western standards of equality.
(Not to overstate the obvious, but obviously Western countries have not yet attained their own self-professed standards of equality.)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_re_as/india_dividing_waters
Full text:
TRIVENIGANJ, India - In the two weeks since a monsoon-swollen river burst its banks, ancient prejudices have run just as deep as the floodwaters. India's "untouchables" are the last to be rescued — if at all — from a deluge that has killed dozens and made 1.2 million homeless.
Dalits, the social outcasts at the bottom of the Hindu caste ladder, have borne the brunt of the devastation as the rampaging Kosi River swamped hundreds of square miles in northern India after it overflowed and shifted its course dozens of miles to the east.
On Sunday, one Dalit, Mohan Parwan ran up and down a half destroyed bridge that has become the headquarters for rescue operations in this town near the border with Nepal, desperately scanning arriving boats for signs of his family.
Dozens came in but each time he was disappointed.
Parwan, 43, is from a Dalit village just 2 miles away but completely cut off by a deep lake created by the swirling waters. As the village headman, he was put on the first rescue boat that came and was promised his wife, four children and the rest of the community would follow.
"It's been six days and since then no boat has come from the village," he said, tears welling in is eyes.
Dalits have long been shunned, holding a status so low they are considered outside the complex caste system that is all pervasive in India, dividing people into hundreds of groups defined by livelihood, class and ethnicity.
Even India's emergence as a global force — fueled by it's economic growth and high-tech hubs — has failed to break down the barriers and stigmas that hold them down.
When it comes to rescue operations, it appears Dalits are at the bottom, too.
In Triveniganj, Dalits huddled together in a small group at the end of the bridge away from everyone else. They said rescuers were saving the upper castes and the rich first, leaving their people to suffer without food and clean water.
"We are 200 people on a roof for days. Two children fell in and drowned. No one is coming to help us," said Kishore Ram, 22, who got out on one of the few boats to visit his village.
"The officials don't listen to us little people. We can't offer bribes and influence, I'm just a poor student," Ram said.
Hearing about the flood, Prithvi Chand Baswan, a 38-year-old Dalit, rushed home from the neighboring state of Punjab where he works as a farm laborer, searching for his wife and six children, ages 3 to 12. Four miles from home, he was stopped by flooding.
"People from the village say they are sheltering in the temple, but I can't get to them and they won't send a boat for a Dalit village," he said, holding his head in despair.
Ravindra Prasad Singh, a state government official coordinating rescue work in Triveniganj, about 875 miles east of New Delhi, the capital, denied that Dalits were being ignored.
"It's ridiculous. They are lying," he said, but he could not explain why only a single boat of Dalits had come in during all of Sunday afternoon even though they make up more than half the region's people.
On Monday, other government officials acknowledged there was a serious problem with Dalits being ignored, but said they were working to fix it.
"We are aware of these complaints," said Prataya Amrit, a top disaster management official in Bihar state, the scene of the flooding.
Amrit said greater resources were being sent to Dalit majority areas like Triveniganj and army and navy officers were now handling rescues to ensure less abuses.
The military "presence will instill a lot of confidence," he said. "In an operation of this magnitude you can't distinguish between rich and poor."
Officials also commandeered private boats in an effort to prevent richer and higher castes from monopolizing the vessels.
India's treatment of Dalits is a long and bitter history of good intentions and little progress.
Caste discrimination has been outlawed for more than a half century, and a quota system was established with the aim of giving Dalits a fair share of government jobs and places in schools. But their plight remains dire.
Most Dalits, like Parwan, live in destitute villages of rickety mud and thatch huts with no electricity or running water, kept down by ancient prejudice and caste-based politics.
In much of rural India, people from lower castes are barred from using upper-caste drinking wells, kept out of temples and denied spots in village. Ignoring the prohibitions is often met with violence.
In times of calamity, their situation is no better.
"Caste hierarchy is a source of deep emotions in India. In the face of these emotions it is difficult for the law or the army to do anything," said Chandrabhan Prasad, a New Delhi-based caste expert. "The rescuers have their caste loyalty and will try rescue their own first."
Faced with indifference and even hostility from many officials, one group of Dalits gave up waiting for help and waded into the neck-deep water in search of their kin.
"What can we do?" Parwan said, after being angrily shooed away by Singh for again asking to be given a boat to help his village.
"I'm just a Harijan," Parwan added, using a euphemism for Dalits coined by Indian pacifist icon Mohandas K. Gandhi. It means "child of God."
#
Gavin Rabinowitz of the Associated Press reports in some detail. Despite protestations from India's government that Dalit villages were being ignored by rescue boats, "only a single boat of Dalits had come in during all of Sunday afternoon even though they make up more than half the region's people."
Personal testimony by Dalits whose entire families were left behind to die are especially poignant.
Emerging powers like China and India are making runaway economic progress, but their social progress has often lagged far behind. India's recent conversions of millions of Dalits from Hinduism to Buddhism (despite government attempts to halt such conversions) , as well as the government-directed anti-Muslim pogroms of 2002 that killed thousands of innocents, have shown just how far the country has to go before beginning to approach Western standards of equality.
(Not to overstate the obvious, but obviously Western countries have not yet attained their own self-professed standards of equality.)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_re_as/india_dividing_waters
Full text:
TRIVENIGANJ, India - In the two weeks since a monsoon-swollen river burst its banks, ancient prejudices have run just as deep as the floodwaters. India's "untouchables" are the last to be rescued — if at all — from a deluge that has killed dozens and made 1.2 million homeless.
Dalits, the social outcasts at the bottom of the Hindu caste ladder, have borne the brunt of the devastation as the rampaging Kosi River swamped hundreds of square miles in northern India after it overflowed and shifted its course dozens of miles to the east.
On Sunday, one Dalit, Mohan Parwan ran up and down a half destroyed bridge that has become the headquarters for rescue operations in this town near the border with Nepal, desperately scanning arriving boats for signs of his family.
Dozens came in but each time he was disappointed.
Parwan, 43, is from a Dalit village just 2 miles away but completely cut off by a deep lake created by the swirling waters. As the village headman, he was put on the first rescue boat that came and was promised his wife, four children and the rest of the community would follow.
"It's been six days and since then no boat has come from the village," he said, tears welling in is eyes.
Dalits have long been shunned, holding a status so low they are considered outside the complex caste system that is all pervasive in India, dividing people into hundreds of groups defined by livelihood, class and ethnicity.
Even India's emergence as a global force — fueled by it's economic growth and high-tech hubs — has failed to break down the barriers and stigmas that hold them down.
When it comes to rescue operations, it appears Dalits are at the bottom, too.
In Triveniganj, Dalits huddled together in a small group at the end of the bridge away from everyone else. They said rescuers were saving the upper castes and the rich first, leaving their people to suffer without food and clean water.
"We are 200 people on a roof for days. Two children fell in and drowned. No one is coming to help us," said Kishore Ram, 22, who got out on one of the few boats to visit his village.
"The officials don't listen to us little people. We can't offer bribes and influence, I'm just a poor student," Ram said.
Hearing about the flood, Prithvi Chand Baswan, a 38-year-old Dalit, rushed home from the neighboring state of Punjab where he works as a farm laborer, searching for his wife and six children, ages 3 to 12. Four miles from home, he was stopped by flooding.
"People from the village say they are sheltering in the temple, but I can't get to them and they won't send a boat for a Dalit village," he said, holding his head in despair.
Ravindra Prasad Singh, a state government official coordinating rescue work in Triveniganj, about 875 miles east of New Delhi, the capital, denied that Dalits were being ignored.
"It's ridiculous. They are lying," he said, but he could not explain why only a single boat of Dalits had come in during all of Sunday afternoon even though they make up more than half the region's people.
On Monday, other government officials acknowledged there was a serious problem with Dalits being ignored, but said they were working to fix it.
"We are aware of these complaints," said Prataya Amrit, a top disaster management official in Bihar state, the scene of the flooding.
Amrit said greater resources were being sent to Dalit majority areas like Triveniganj and army and navy officers were now handling rescues to ensure less abuses.
The military "presence will instill a lot of confidence," he said. "In an operation of this magnitude you can't distinguish between rich and poor."
Officials also commandeered private boats in an effort to prevent richer and higher castes from monopolizing the vessels.
India's treatment of Dalits is a long and bitter history of good intentions and little progress.
Caste discrimination has been outlawed for more than a half century, and a quota system was established with the aim of giving Dalits a fair share of government jobs and places in schools. But their plight remains dire.
Most Dalits, like Parwan, live in destitute villages of rickety mud and thatch huts with no electricity or running water, kept down by ancient prejudice and caste-based politics.
In much of rural India, people from lower castes are barred from using upper-caste drinking wells, kept out of temples and denied spots in village. Ignoring the prohibitions is often met with violence.
In times of calamity, their situation is no better.
"Caste hierarchy is a source of deep emotions in India. In the face of these emotions it is difficult for the law or the army to do anything," said Chandrabhan Prasad, a New Delhi-based caste expert. "The rescuers have their caste loyalty and will try rescue their own first."
Faced with indifference and even hostility from many officials, one group of Dalits gave up waiting for help and waded into the neck-deep water in search of their kin.
"What can we do?" Parwan said, after being angrily shooed away by Singh for again asking to be given a boat to help his village.
"I'm just a Harijan," Parwan added, using a euphemism for Dalits coined by Indian pacifist icon Mohandas K. Gandhi. It means "child of God."
#
Friday, August 29, 2008
Irshad Manji and the American Left (and the Neocons, and the so-called "Intelligentsia" at large)
Most of you are probably familiar with Irshad Manji, a Canadian "journalist", a wanton Muslim-basher who proudly called herself an atheist before realising it was more profitable to market herself as a "practising Muslim" who just happens to hate Muslims, the Qur'an, Muhammad, and Palestinians, and who happens to love Bush and praise Israel for its "compassionate" policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians.
M. Junaid Alam (who for some reason has now taken to calling himself M. Junaid Levesque-Alam), an excellent writer, explores some of the reasons for Manji's extreme popularity among the American intelligentsia, from both the right and the left.
The only thing American conservatives and liberals can agree on, it seems, is that Mozzlims suck.
Check it out:
http://counterpunch.org/junaid08272008.html
Levesque-Alam's coverage of the Asbahi affair, and Manji's reaction to it, is worth paying close attention to.
#
M. Junaid Alam (who for some reason has now taken to calling himself M. Junaid Levesque-Alam), an excellent writer, explores some of the reasons for Manji's extreme popularity among the American intelligentsia, from both the right and the left.
The only thing American conservatives and liberals can agree on, it seems, is that Mozzlims suck.
Check it out:
http://counterpunch.org/junaid08272008.html
Levesque-Alam's coverage of the Asbahi affair, and Manji's reaction to it, is worth paying close attention to.
#
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
I Got Into Harvard! (But Israel Won't Let Me Go.)
Some university students in Gaza who were accepted for admission to Harvard and other Ivy League schools were denied permission to leave the country by Israel. Israel did not cite security or other concerns (and how could they, considering the students would be leaving Israel/Palestine). It simply denied them their right to education.
There is a public Israeli precedent for this. In the past - most recently in the fall of 2000, off the top of my head - the United Nations General Assembly voted in favour of resolutions granting Palestinians basic rights, such as the right to obtain access to an education within their own homeland. Naturally, all of these resolutions passed easily with overwhelming vote counts of roughly 148-2 and 151-1 (this is no exaggeration; look up the exact votes on the UN homepage). The two votes against? The U.S. and Israel. And in cases when there was only one opposing vote, it was cast by Israel, with the U.S. abstaining.
Apparently, the U.S. and Israel are alone among nations in the world in believing that Palestinians have no right to an education.
A snippet here of the recent Ha'aretz article, with the full link below:
Gisha, an Israeli organization aimed at protecting Palestinian freedom of movement, says the problems the Palestinian students faced are not out of the ordinary.
"There are hundreds of students in the Gaza Strip who were accepted by universities abroad and have valid visas," said Gisha executive director Sari Bashi.
But, she added, "Israel issues a comprehensive ban on students from Gaza going abroad, as part of its policy of collective punishment toward Gaza residents, thereby impinging on the right to education of hundreds of talented young people who want to study, develop, and create a better future in our region."
====
No matter how you slice it, this shit is fucked up.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1008866.html
#
There is a public Israeli precedent for this. In the past - most recently in the fall of 2000, off the top of my head - the United Nations General Assembly voted in favour of resolutions granting Palestinians basic rights, such as the right to obtain access to an education within their own homeland. Naturally, all of these resolutions passed easily with overwhelming vote counts of roughly 148-2 and 151-1 (this is no exaggeration; look up the exact votes on the UN homepage). The two votes against? The U.S. and Israel. And in cases when there was only one opposing vote, it was cast by Israel, with the U.S. abstaining.
Apparently, the U.S. and Israel are alone among nations in the world in believing that Palestinians have no right to an education.
A snippet here of the recent Ha'aretz article, with the full link below:
Gisha, an Israeli organization aimed at protecting Palestinian freedom of movement, says the problems the Palestinian students faced are not out of the ordinary.
"There are hundreds of students in the Gaza Strip who were accepted by universities abroad and have valid visas," said Gisha executive director Sari Bashi.
But, she added, "Israel issues a comprehensive ban on students from Gaza going abroad, as part of its policy of collective punishment toward Gaza residents, thereby impinging on the right to education of hundreds of talented young people who want to study, develop, and create a better future in our region."
====
No matter how you slice it, this shit is fucked up.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1008866.html
#
Monday, August 18, 2008
Foreigner? An American Outcast in His Own Homeland
Guest Column by Pak-Man:
Am I a foreigner? Americans certainly seem to think so. In the space of a couple of hours, I was once "accused" of being a foreigner, and once informed that I am being investigated by the highest intelligence levels of the United States Air Force for being a "foreign national".
I was born in Washington, D.C., not far from the White House. I am as American as motherfucking apple pie.
By e-mail, my roommate from college notified me that I may soon be receiving a call from the United States Air Force and/or CIA. He is currently upgrading his security status to "Top Secret" and underwent an extensive interview and vetting process in which he was asked about his contact with any and all foreign nationals during his lifetime.
He writes: "I told them about our long history together" (we roomed together at a Southern university for eight months). He then writes that "they may be calling you over the next few days to ask you a few questions."
Once again, I was born in Washington, D.C., the capital of these United States. I have never been a foreign national, and I never will be. Now I have the feds breathing down my neck because I have a Muslim surname.
Two hours later, a patient in the hospital, a veteran of the Vietnam War with bilateral above the knee amputations shouted at me, "The reason I'm like this is because of a foreigner like you!"
Once again, I am not a foreigner. I am proud of whatever foreign heredity I have, from both Pakistan and India, but by no definition of the word am I a foreigner. I was born here and have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxes here, and have even, if truth be told, saved more than a few American lives in my work as a physician - far, far more lives than our "brave boys in the service" have saved in their murderous raping rampages in Iraq.
I needn't even have informed the Vietnam veteran that my "foreigness" is not related to Vietnam in any way, nor is it related to Korea or Germany or Japan or Iraq or Afghanistan or Panama or Grenada or the Philippines or Somalia or Cuba or any of the other places in which our fearless government has sent its fearless Christian sons.
This is what you get for being Muslim in America: accused of being a fifth column, never accepted as a "real American". Ever noticed how racist the description "all-American girl" or "all-American guy" is? It just means someone with blue eyes and blonde hair. No black person can be said to have "an all-American" look.
Motherfuckers. This is my reward for saving their lives. No white person ever flew to Pakistan or India to save my grandparents' lives when they were suffering and dying in hospitals there.
Am I a foreigner? Americans certainly seem to think so. In the space of a couple of hours, I was once "accused" of being a foreigner, and once informed that I am being investigated by the highest intelligence levels of the United States Air Force for being a "foreign national".
I was born in Washington, D.C., not far from the White House. I am as American as motherfucking apple pie.
By e-mail, my roommate from college notified me that I may soon be receiving a call from the United States Air Force and/or CIA. He is currently upgrading his security status to "Top Secret" and underwent an extensive interview and vetting process in which he was asked about his contact with any and all foreign nationals during his lifetime.
He writes: "I told them about our long history together" (we roomed together at a Southern university for eight months). He then writes that "they may be calling you over the next few days to ask you a few questions."
Once again, I was born in Washington, D.C., the capital of these United States. I have never been a foreign national, and I never will be. Now I have the feds breathing down my neck because I have a Muslim surname.
Two hours later, a patient in the hospital, a veteran of the Vietnam War with bilateral above the knee amputations shouted at me, "The reason I'm like this is because of a foreigner like you!"
Once again, I am not a foreigner. I am proud of whatever foreign heredity I have, from both Pakistan and India, but by no definition of the word am I a foreigner. I was born here and have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxes here, and have even, if truth be told, saved more than a few American lives in my work as a physician - far, far more lives than our "brave boys in the service" have saved in their murderous raping rampages in Iraq.
I needn't even have informed the Vietnam veteran that my "foreigness" is not related to Vietnam in any way, nor is it related to Korea or Germany or Japan or Iraq or Afghanistan or Panama or Grenada or the Philippines or Somalia or Cuba or any of the other places in which our fearless government has sent its fearless Christian sons.
This is what you get for being Muslim in America: accused of being a fifth column, never accepted as a "real American". Ever noticed how racist the description "all-American girl" or "all-American guy" is? It just means someone with blue eyes and blonde hair. No black person can be said to have "an all-American" look.
Motherfuckers. This is my reward for saving their lives. No white person ever flew to Pakistan or India to save my grandparents' lives when they were suffering and dying in hospitals there.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Muslim Smear Applies to Muslims (not just Obama)
Mazen Asbahi, whom Barack Obama chose to coordinate his Muslim American affairs, resigned from that position just days after being selected for the prestigious (or notorious?) post because of controversial alleged ties to a "mosque in Chicago controlled by a fundamentalist imam".
His childhood friend, Rany Jazayerli, of Baseball Prospectus fame, and a physician, writes passionately on fivethirtyeight.com that "Mazen was forced to resign because of a smear campaign that targeted him for the sin of being Muslim: nothing more, nothing less."
Jazayerli examines the media's coverage of Asbahi's resignation, particularly the Wall Street Journal's "expose" on the subject.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/perspective-on-mazen-asbahi.html
The entire affair is a disgrace.
#
His childhood friend, Rany Jazayerli, of Baseball Prospectus fame, and a physician, writes passionately on fivethirtyeight.com that "Mazen was forced to resign because of a smear campaign that targeted him for the sin of being Muslim: nothing more, nothing less."
Jazayerli examines the media's coverage of Asbahi's resignation, particularly the Wall Street Journal's "expose" on the subject.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/perspective-on-mazen-asbahi.html
The entire affair is a disgrace.
#
Saturday, July 26, 2008
U.S. Gov't Considers Quashing General's Report
.
from Democracy Now!:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/23/headlines#6
Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reports the Bush administration is debating whether to silence a forthcoming high-level report critical of Israel’s conduct in the Occupied Territories.
The report is written by the top US official there, retired general James Jones.
According to the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, Jones has written a “scathing” report criticizing both the Israeli government and the White House. Israeli officials who met with Jones said they expect the report to be “very harsh, and make Israel look very bad.”
Jones is said to be particularly critical of Israel’s claim to have security interests to justify its large settlement blocs on Palestinian land. Top administration officials are said to be so upset by the report they are debating blocking its release.
===END ARTICLE===
How is it that every time someone studies the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, whether they be a retired American general, a sitting U.S. Supreme Court judge (Harry Blackmun), or American university students, the conclusion they come to - if they are not under political pressure to conform to the American/Israeli party line - "makes Israel look very bad"?
It is amazing. I've witnessed this several times in my own life, as well, as classmates from my university days all came to roughly the same conclusions regarding the conflict.
If it's so one-sided and obvious as to who is responsible for starting and continuing the conflict - as confirmed by numerous UN Security Council Resolutions and General Assembly Resolutions, as well as opinions of professors of international law and rulings of the International Court of Justice - how is it that the conflict is presented as a "complex, debatable issue" in our American media, a "muddled mess" that is impossible to get to the bottom of?
#
from Democracy Now!:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/23/headlines#6
Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reports the Bush administration is debating whether to silence a forthcoming high-level report critical of Israel’s conduct in the Occupied Territories.
The report is written by the top US official there, retired general James Jones.
According to the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, Jones has written a “scathing” report criticizing both the Israeli government and the White House. Israeli officials who met with Jones said they expect the report to be “very harsh, and make Israel look very bad.”
Jones is said to be particularly critical of Israel’s claim to have security interests to justify its large settlement blocs on Palestinian land. Top administration officials are said to be so upset by the report they are debating blocking its release.
===END ARTICLE===
How is it that every time someone studies the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, whether they be a retired American general, a sitting U.S. Supreme Court judge (Harry Blackmun), or American university students, the conclusion they come to - if they are not under political pressure to conform to the American/Israeli party line - "makes Israel look very bad"?
It is amazing. I've witnessed this several times in my own life, as well, as classmates from my university days all came to roughly the same conclusions regarding the conflict.
If it's so one-sided and obvious as to who is responsible for starting and continuing the conflict - as confirmed by numerous UN Security Council Resolutions and General Assembly Resolutions, as well as opinions of professors of international law and rulings of the International Court of Justice - how is it that the conflict is presented as a "complex, debatable issue" in our American media, a "muddled mess" that is impossible to get to the bottom of?
#
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Israeli Gubment Plays Dumb on Cluster Bomb Use in Lebanon '06
.
This new titbit from the Associated Press. The Israeli government claims, amazingly, that it knew nothing of the military's illegal use of literally millions of cluster bombs on Lebanon in its 2006 invasion of the country.
The government claims the military never mentioned the humdrum fact that they dropped millions of such bombs illegally on civilian population centres in Lebanon, so the government remained blissfully unaware.
Did they not read the papers? Did they not watch the news?
Every TV and news organisation in Israel and the rest of the world more than casually, and more than once, announced that Israel was dropping thousands of cluster bombs per hour on Lebanon. One Israeli military official even bragged that they were deliberately pointed at civilians and had no military use whatsoever.
Surprisingly, American newspapers widely reported Israel's use of cluster bombs in Lebanon at the time. My hometown paper in the U.S. even published an article I wrote which mentioned briefly the illegal use of cluster bombs. (The paper's op-ed editor didn't deny that Israel had used cluster bombs but initially disputed my claim that said usage was illegal, till I proved it with several sources; to her credit, she relented and printed my article in full in the Sunday edition of an admittedly small-time paper.)
Even by Israeli standards of propaganda and lying, this new claim is breathtaking.
"Israel didn't know of cluster bomb use"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/19/AR2008071900729.html
#
This new titbit from the Associated Press. The Israeli government claims, amazingly, that it knew nothing of the military's illegal use of literally millions of cluster bombs on Lebanon in its 2006 invasion of the country.
The government claims the military never mentioned the humdrum fact that they dropped millions of such bombs illegally on civilian population centres in Lebanon, so the government remained blissfully unaware.
Did they not read the papers? Did they not watch the news?
Every TV and news organisation in Israel and the rest of the world more than casually, and more than once, announced that Israel was dropping thousands of cluster bombs per hour on Lebanon. One Israeli military official even bragged that they were deliberately pointed at civilians and had no military use whatsoever.
Surprisingly, American newspapers widely reported Israel's use of cluster bombs in Lebanon at the time. My hometown paper in the U.S. even published an article I wrote which mentioned briefly the illegal use of cluster bombs. (The paper's op-ed editor didn't deny that Israel had used cluster bombs but initially disputed my claim that said usage was illegal, till I proved it with several sources; to her credit, she relented and printed my article in full in the Sunday edition of an admittedly small-time paper.)
Even by Israeli standards of propaganda and lying, this new claim is breathtaking.
"Israel didn't know of cluster bomb use"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/19/AR2008071900729.html
#
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Holy Cow History
"Never believe the news," I used to say when I was 21. "A few years later, the truth will come out. The New York Times' banner should read, 'All the news that will be proven false a few years hence'." I was a wise ass then.
Check out this amazing history of an Iranian passenger flight loaded with pilgrims from Hajj being shot down in cold blood by a U.S. warship illegally treading into Iranian waters. Don't remember that, you say? Well, the 11th of July was the 20-year anniversary of that event.
Most of the truth of it came out by 1992, but conveniently, it's been forgot by our current White House inhabitants (to say nothing of our Congress and our citizenry as a whole).
Read all about it:
http://counterpunch.com/sasan07112008.html
#
Check out this amazing history of an Iranian passenger flight loaded with pilgrims from Hajj being shot down in cold blood by a U.S. warship illegally treading into Iranian waters. Don't remember that, you say? Well, the 11th of July was the 20-year anniversary of that event.
Most of the truth of it came out by 1992, but conveniently, it's been forgot by our current White House inhabitants (to say nothing of our Congress and our citizenry as a whole).
Read all about it:
http://counterpunch.com/sasan07112008.html
#
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Will Iran Attack Israel? or Turkey? or Saudi? ... or Europe?
Our own American media reaches new lows in the breathless coverage of Iran's testing three (or four) missiles. Iran has had these missiles for years, has had the capability of striking its neighbours for years. This isn't news whatsoever.
The Young Turks (of Air America) break it down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB__0qRHBRc&feature=user
God, we Americans really are morons if we can't see the most obvious things under our beautiful aquiline noses.
The Young Turks (of Air America) break it down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB__0qRHBRc&feature=user
God, we Americans really are morons if we can't see the most obvious things under our beautiful aquiline noses.
Monday, July 7, 2008
The NY Times and Wash Post Won't Touch This Story. Why?
McClatchy Newspapers, an American organisation, has conducted the most in-depth and serious investigation yet into torture of illegally detained prisoners at Guantanamo. Considered a landmark study by newspaper publishers and editors, the report has not made even a ripple in the national media. (Of course, McClatchy itself is a mainstream news media company. Why, then, are media outlets not giving this groundbreaking story any play?)
The New York Times and Washington Post (to say nothing of the two presidential candidates) have not yet even acknowledged the report or its findings, which are nothing if not seminal.
A small newspaper in Boston, The Phoenix, examines the report, its implications for American security and the "War on Terror", and the question of why it has disappeared into the Memory Hole.
Is anybody paying attention to McClatchy's powerful Guantánamo exposé?
FULL STORY (since link rot is inevitable):
An old-media triumph sheds new light on Bush’s terror policy By ADAM REILLY June 25, 2008
Even before its 2006 acquisition of Knight Ridder, California-based McClatchy had a reputation for putting out some of America’s best mid-level dailies. The Knight Ridder purchase, when it occurred, didn’t just add powerhouses like the Miami Herald and Charlotte Observer to McClatchy’s stable; it also gave McClatchy access to Knight Ridder’s Washington, DC, bureau, which had distinguished itself with commendably skeptical coverage prior to the Iraq War.
Now with this past week’s publication of a series on the Kafka-esque detention of thousands of foreign nationals following 9/11, the hybrid McClatchy–Knight Ridder DC operation is enjoying its biggest achievement to date. The subject matter of “Guantánamo: Beyond the Law” wasn’t new, exactly — the abuse of prisoners, the questionable criteria used to put them behind bars, and the dubious legal framework crafted to justify their ongoing legal limbo have all been covered elsewhere. But the depth of McClatchy’s treatment was unprecedented, and its conclusions were startling. For one thing, most prisoners at Guantánamo had “no intelligence value in the war on terror.” For another, by radicalizing formerly apolitical detainees, Guantánamo may actually have made Americans less safe, not more.
In the course of their research, reporters Tom Lasseter and Matthew Schofield talked to 66 former detainees who’d been held at Guantánamo and elsewhere; the fruits of their eight-plus-month investigation were published, by design, on the heels of the Supreme Court’s ruling that Guantánamo’s inmates can challenge their detentions in civilian court. (The series also appeared the same week that McClatchy announced its latest round of cutbacks; more on that in a bit.) The vast scope of Lasseter and Schofield’s reporting makes it more likely that their findings will hold up in the future. And, as an added bonus, it gives the public a vast trove of anecdotal evidence, which has been skillfully packaged online at mcclatchydc.com/detainees. There’s a photo gallery, video interviews with 10 former prisoners, and miniature profiles of every single detainee interviewed for the series. Sometimes the old saw about “journalism being the first draft of history” makes you feel sorry for the historians. Not here.
But is “Guantánamo: Beyond the Law” getting the attention that it should? That’s hard to say. As Editor & Publisher noted this past week, pickup and play inside the McClatchy chain itself has been outstanding. (McClatchy’s papers aren’t obligated to use material generated by the chain’s Washington bureau.) Several non-McClatchy papers, including the Oregonian and the Denver Post, have run part or all of the series, too. And according to Roy Gutman, McClatchy’s foreign editor, it’s been discussed on CNN (by Christiane Amanpour) and NPR (on Talk of the Nation, All Things Considered, and The Diane Rehm Show).
Still, the series’ reach has its limits. As of this writing, for example — and despite both the aforementioned Supreme Court decision and a new Physicians for Human Rights report that accuses the Bush administration of torture and war crimes — the New York Times hasn’t mentioned “Guantánamo: Beyond the Law,” even on its op-ed page. The Washington Post has, but only online. The various network news programs, including the Sunday-morning political talk shows, seem uninterested. And despite the fact that US detention policy has emerged as a major point of contention between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, neither the candidates themselves nor their campaigns have publicly discussed McClatchy’s findings.
No surprise, then, that McClatchy’s top editorial brass — even as they voice their short-term satisfaction — seem to be hoping for better things to come. When I asked David Westphal, McClatchy’s Washington editor, about the reaction the series has elicited, his immediate response was positive: “I feel really good about it.” But then he added this: “We always thought that it would have kind of a long tail, or we hoped so. Our assumption was that we were putting something out there that has a long life.”
For his part, Gutman was slightly less sanguine. “We haven’t had any impact yet, to be quite honest,” he said. “The real question is, how does this get translated into action? You have to think of the political side, first and foremost. . . . Sometimes, with stories you’d think would have people out marching in the streets, nothing happens. And sometimes nothing happens until six months later.”
It’s still possible that “Guantánamo: Beyond the Law” will end up driving the debate over detainee policy during the presidential stretch drive. But maybe, for a few different reasons — including the reluctance of most news organizations to chase competitors’ scoops, and a broader reluctance to seriously grapple with the worst that’s done in the name of “homeland security” — neither the series nor the subject will ultimately get the attention they deserve.
Another question worth pondering: could “Guantánamo: Beyond the Law” end up being, if not McClatchy’s last hurrah, then something close to it? Since absorbing Knight Ridder, McClatchy has earned praise from Michael Massing (writing in the New York Review of Books) for its unique reporting from inside Iraq. It’s also done a fine job covering the high-stakes military minuet between the United States and Iran. But McClatchy, like most news organizations, is cutting back of late. On Monday, June 16, McClatchy announced plans for 1400 new job cuts, which would shrink its nationwide operation by 10 percent. And the Washington bureau won’t be unscathed. Westphal, McClatchy’s Washington editor, will be leaving that post to move to California with his wife, Geneva Overholser, who was recently named director of the journalism school at USC’s Annenberg School for Communication. He won’t be replaced. Neither will David Whitney, an outgoing correspondent who covers Washington for the Sacramento Bee and San Luis Obispo Tribune. Matt Stearns, an outgoing general-assignment national correspondent, might or might not be. After these and other departures, McClatchy’s DC shop, like the company as a whole, will be about 10 percent smaller than it was a year ago.
But Walcott, who’ll run the Washington operation after Westphal’s departure, insists that these cutbacks won’t be crippling. “We will continue to do, and can continue to do, this kind of reporting — the kind of reporting that we did on the US attorneys story, and the Iraq war, and on US relations with Iran,” he told the Phoenix. “Some of these cuts may make it harder, and it may take a little longer. We may have to be selective about how much we do. But we’re going to continue to do this kind of work.”
This kind of work, Walcott added, can only be done by a certain, privileged segment of the news media. “Not every news organization, in print or online, has the resources to do this kind of thing,” he said. “I think sometimes people are a little quick to pull the trigger on the hated ‘mainstream media.’ We are a mainstream media company, and that’s one of the reasons we can do things like this.
“That’s not to say we’re perfect, or that we don’t deserve a lot of criticism, we in the mainstream media,” he said. “But once in a while, we’re capable of doing something worthwhile, something only a large organization can do.”
This willingness to describe “Guantánamo: Beyond the Law” as a generalized mainstream-media victory — as opposed to just a triumph for McClatchy — is commendable. Maybe McClatchy’s competitors can return the favor by helping the series get the readership it deserves.
The New York Times and Washington Post (to say nothing of the two presidential candidates) have not yet even acknowledged the report or its findings, which are nothing if not seminal.
A small newspaper in Boston, The Phoenix, examines the report, its implications for American security and the "War on Terror", and the question of why it has disappeared into the Memory Hole.
Is anybody paying attention to McClatchy's powerful Guantánamo exposé?
FULL STORY (since link rot is inevitable):
An old-media triumph sheds new light on Bush’s terror policy By ADAM REILLY June 25, 2008
Even before its 2006 acquisition of Knight Ridder, California-based McClatchy had a reputation for putting out some of America’s best mid-level dailies. The Knight Ridder purchase, when it occurred, didn’t just add powerhouses like the Miami Herald and Charlotte Observer to McClatchy’s stable; it also gave McClatchy access to Knight Ridder’s Washington, DC, bureau, which had distinguished itself with commendably skeptical coverage prior to the Iraq War.
Now with this past week’s publication of a series on the Kafka-esque detention of thousands of foreign nationals following 9/11, the hybrid McClatchy–Knight Ridder DC operation is enjoying its biggest achievement to date. The subject matter of “Guantánamo: Beyond the Law” wasn’t new, exactly — the abuse of prisoners, the questionable criteria used to put them behind bars, and the dubious legal framework crafted to justify their ongoing legal limbo have all been covered elsewhere. But the depth of McClatchy’s treatment was unprecedented, and its conclusions were startling. For one thing, most prisoners at Guantánamo had “no intelligence value in the war on terror.” For another, by radicalizing formerly apolitical detainees, Guantánamo may actually have made Americans less safe, not more.
In the course of their research, reporters Tom Lasseter and Matthew Schofield talked to 66 former detainees who’d been held at Guantánamo and elsewhere; the fruits of their eight-plus-month investigation were published, by design, on the heels of the Supreme Court’s ruling that Guantánamo’s inmates can challenge their detentions in civilian court. (The series also appeared the same week that McClatchy announced its latest round of cutbacks; more on that in a bit.) The vast scope of Lasseter and Schofield’s reporting makes it more likely that their findings will hold up in the future. And, as an added bonus, it gives the public a vast trove of anecdotal evidence, which has been skillfully packaged online at mcclatchydc.com/detainees. There’s a photo gallery, video interviews with 10 former prisoners, and miniature profiles of every single detainee interviewed for the series. Sometimes the old saw about “journalism being the first draft of history” makes you feel sorry for the historians. Not here.
But is “Guantánamo: Beyond the Law” getting the attention that it should? That’s hard to say. As Editor & Publisher noted this past week, pickup and play inside the McClatchy chain itself has been outstanding. (McClatchy’s papers aren’t obligated to use material generated by the chain’s Washington bureau.) Several non-McClatchy papers, including the Oregonian and the Denver Post, have run part or all of the series, too. And according to Roy Gutman, McClatchy’s foreign editor, it’s been discussed on CNN (by Christiane Amanpour) and NPR (on Talk of the Nation, All Things Considered, and The Diane Rehm Show).
Still, the series’ reach has its limits. As of this writing, for example — and despite both the aforementioned Supreme Court decision and a new Physicians for Human Rights report that accuses the Bush administration of torture and war crimes — the New York Times hasn’t mentioned “Guantánamo: Beyond the Law,” even on its op-ed page. The Washington Post has, but only online. The various network news programs, including the Sunday-morning political talk shows, seem uninterested. And despite the fact that US detention policy has emerged as a major point of contention between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, neither the candidates themselves nor their campaigns have publicly discussed McClatchy’s findings.
No surprise, then, that McClatchy’s top editorial brass — even as they voice their short-term satisfaction — seem to be hoping for better things to come. When I asked David Westphal, McClatchy’s Washington editor, about the reaction the series has elicited, his immediate response was positive: “I feel really good about it.” But then he added this: “We always thought that it would have kind of a long tail, or we hoped so. Our assumption was that we were putting something out there that has a long life.”
For his part, Gutman was slightly less sanguine. “We haven’t had any impact yet, to be quite honest,” he said. “The real question is, how does this get translated into action? You have to think of the political side, first and foremost. . . . Sometimes, with stories you’d think would have people out marching in the streets, nothing happens. And sometimes nothing happens until six months later.”
It’s still possible that “Guantánamo: Beyond the Law” will end up driving the debate over detainee policy during the presidential stretch drive. But maybe, for a few different reasons — including the reluctance of most news organizations to chase competitors’ scoops, and a broader reluctance to seriously grapple with the worst that’s done in the name of “homeland security” — neither the series nor the subject will ultimately get the attention they deserve.
Another question worth pondering: could “Guantánamo: Beyond the Law” end up being, if not McClatchy’s last hurrah, then something close to it? Since absorbing Knight Ridder, McClatchy has earned praise from Michael Massing (writing in the New York Review of Books) for its unique reporting from inside Iraq. It’s also done a fine job covering the high-stakes military minuet between the United States and Iran. But McClatchy, like most news organizations, is cutting back of late. On Monday, June 16, McClatchy announced plans for 1400 new job cuts, which would shrink its nationwide operation by 10 percent. And the Washington bureau won’t be unscathed. Westphal, McClatchy’s Washington editor, will be leaving that post to move to California with his wife, Geneva Overholser, who was recently named director of the journalism school at USC’s Annenberg School for Communication. He won’t be replaced. Neither will David Whitney, an outgoing correspondent who covers Washington for the Sacramento Bee and San Luis Obispo Tribune. Matt Stearns, an outgoing general-assignment national correspondent, might or might not be. After these and other departures, McClatchy’s DC shop, like the company as a whole, will be about 10 percent smaller than it was a year ago.
But Walcott, who’ll run the Washington operation after Westphal’s departure, insists that these cutbacks won’t be crippling. “We will continue to do, and can continue to do, this kind of reporting — the kind of reporting that we did on the US attorneys story, and the Iraq war, and on US relations with Iran,” he told the Phoenix. “Some of these cuts may make it harder, and it may take a little longer. We may have to be selective about how much we do. But we’re going to continue to do this kind of work.”
This kind of work, Walcott added, can only be done by a certain, privileged segment of the news media. “Not every news organization, in print or online, has the resources to do this kind of thing,” he said. “I think sometimes people are a little quick to pull the trigger on the hated ‘mainstream media.’ We are a mainstream media company, and that’s one of the reasons we can do things like this.
“That’s not to say we’re perfect, or that we don’t deserve a lot of criticism, we in the mainstream media,” he said. “But once in a while, we’re capable of doing something worthwhile, something only a large organization can do.”
This willingness to describe “Guantánamo: Beyond the Law” as a generalized mainstream-media victory — as opposed to just a triumph for McClatchy — is commendable. Maybe McClatchy’s competitors can return the favor by helping the series get the readership it deserves.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Obama will turn our country into Canada? Sweet!
If this columnist from the right-wing Washington Times* is right, I'll definitely vote for Obama. Canada is exactly what these United States need to become.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/29/obamas-america-is-canada/
*True story: I shared a cab once in Jerusalem with a white South African who wrote for The Washington Times. He asked me if I'd heard of the paper. "Don't confuse it with the Washington Post," he said.
"Of course I've heard of it," I said. "It's a right-leaning paper." I said it matter-of-factly, not disparagingly. (I was in a good mood after negotiating a sweet fare for him and me. He was a bystander to the dickering process and then asked at the last second if he could jump in with me since he was going to the same place.)
"Oh no, oh no, it's not right-leaning at all," he expostulated. "It's a very mainstream paper." Right, but Fox News is also considered mainstream in our crazy country. That doesn't discount its being a right-wing network. Everyone knows that. I don't deny that The Nation is a left-leaning magazine, or "a liberal rag", in the words of one of my lefty friends.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/29/obamas-america-is-canada/
*True story: I shared a cab once in Jerusalem with a white South African who wrote for The Washington Times. He asked me if I'd heard of the paper. "Don't confuse it with the Washington Post," he said.
"Of course I've heard of it," I said. "It's a right-leaning paper." I said it matter-of-factly, not disparagingly. (I was in a good mood after negotiating a sweet fare for him and me. He was a bystander to the dickering process and then asked at the last second if he could jump in with me since he was going to the same place.)
"Oh no, oh no, it's not right-leaning at all," he expostulated. "It's a very mainstream paper." Right, but Fox News is also considered mainstream in our crazy country. That doesn't discount its being a right-wing network. Everyone knows that. I don't deny that The Nation is a left-leaning magazine, or "a liberal rag", in the words of one of my lefty friends.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Strange Bedfellows
It's the damndest thing: finding yourself agreeing with those who hold views totally contrary to your own. Take Bill Bonner, editor of The Daily Reckoning (online financial newsletter), and author of two bestselling books on the economy.
Mr. Bonner is a libertarian. He believes that people should be left to fend for themselves, without government interference. "Let them get what they deserve," is his mantra. State involvement, he believes, only ruins economies and civilisations.
Bill is what you may call an old-school conservative, with a small c. How, then, does yours truly, a leftist, self-described "Old World Socialist", champion of universal health care and mandated redistribution of wealth, find himself admiring some of Bonner's views?
Perhaps because Mr. Bonner is so simple-spoken, more eager to write the truth, as he sees it, than to try to please his fearmongering conservative allies.
Let's take his look at "global terrorism", as explained in his column of last Friday (6/20/08):
The United States is an imperial power with one major leading industry: defense. But with no enemies capable of inflicting real damage to the country, the defense industry had to invent one: terrorism…and the people had to believe it.
Readers typically want to argue this point. "What about 9/11?" they ask.
Of course, terrorists always pose a danger to individuals. And if they are daring and determined enough, they pose a danger to many individuals. But they pose no real danger to the state…and none to the Pentagon. You could put all the world's terrorists together in a single army…they would still stand no chance whatsoever of defeating the United States of America.
Normally, it is the police who are charged with protecting citizens. The fuzz fight crime and criminals…even gangs of criminals. Terrorists in the U.S.A., as near as we can tell, are practically non-existent. They don't seem capable of breaking into a parking meter, let alone challenging the U.S. Army. There must be 10,000 paid cops for every one of them. Why bring the Pentagon onto the case?
As mentioned in these reckonings, the feds are adding to the official national debt at the rate of $1.5 billion per day. Still, neither Democrats nor Republicans dared challenge the Pentagon's latest $600 billion spendfest. No one wants to audit the Pentagon. No one wants to oppose it. The Pentagon is in a bubble of its own.
Like Ron Paul, I suppose, you gotta hand it to Mr. Bonner when he exposes problems like "international terror" to be little more than government-created bogeymen created to control a terrified populace. Like Mr. Paul, Mr. Bonner is against useless government spending. He just happens to see all government spending as useless. He may be wrong about that (as is Mr. Paul), but he is right about our military spending's justification being propped up by dubious threats.
Not so fast: Mr. Bonner is actually for the government spending when he thinks it will truly benefit the American public. Check this nugget out from the same column last Friday, regarding what our government should have done in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union:
The sensible thing for the United States to do, following the fall of its one and only major enemy, would have been to cut the defense budget down to a nub…and invest the money in infrastructure and capital improvements, so Americans would be able to compete on better terms with the rising economies of their former enemies.
Is Bill Bonner a genius? Is he secretly a liberal, vehemently opposed to spending money on military adventurism while secretly praying the government will pump billions into creating jobs for Americans?
Or have I become a libertarian?
Mr. Bonner is a libertarian. He believes that people should be left to fend for themselves, without government interference. "Let them get what they deserve," is his mantra. State involvement, he believes, only ruins economies and civilisations.
Bill is what you may call an old-school conservative, with a small c. How, then, does yours truly, a leftist, self-described "Old World Socialist", champion of universal health care and mandated redistribution of wealth, find himself admiring some of Bonner's views?
Perhaps because Mr. Bonner is so simple-spoken, more eager to write the truth, as he sees it, than to try to please his fearmongering conservative allies.
Let's take his look at "global terrorism", as explained in his column of last Friday (6/20/08):
The United States is an imperial power with one major leading industry: defense. But with no enemies capable of inflicting real damage to the country, the defense industry had to invent one: terrorism…and the people had to believe it.
Readers typically want to argue this point. "What about 9/11?" they ask.
Of course, terrorists always pose a danger to individuals. And if they are daring and determined enough, they pose a danger to many individuals. But they pose no real danger to the state…and none to the Pentagon. You could put all the world's terrorists together in a single army…they would still stand no chance whatsoever of defeating the United States of America.
Normally, it is the police who are charged with protecting citizens. The fuzz fight crime and criminals…even gangs of criminals. Terrorists in the U.S.A., as near as we can tell, are practically non-existent. They don't seem capable of breaking into a parking meter, let alone challenging the U.S. Army. There must be 10,000 paid cops for every one of them. Why bring the Pentagon onto the case?
As mentioned in these reckonings, the feds are adding to the official national debt at the rate of $1.5 billion per day. Still, neither Democrats nor Republicans dared challenge the Pentagon's latest $600 billion spendfest. No one wants to audit the Pentagon. No one wants to oppose it. The Pentagon is in a bubble of its own.
Like Ron Paul, I suppose, you gotta hand it to Mr. Bonner when he exposes problems like "international terror" to be little more than government-created bogeymen created to control a terrified populace. Like Mr. Paul, Mr. Bonner is against useless government spending. He just happens to see all government spending as useless. He may be wrong about that (as is Mr. Paul), but he is right about our military spending's justification being propped up by dubious threats.
Not so fast: Mr. Bonner is actually for the government spending when he thinks it will truly benefit the American public. Check this nugget out from the same column last Friday, regarding what our government should have done in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union:
The sensible thing for the United States to do, following the fall of its one and only major enemy, would have been to cut the defense budget down to a nub…and invest the money in infrastructure and capital improvements, so Americans would be able to compete on better terms with the rising economies of their former enemies.
Is Bill Bonner a genius? Is he secretly a liberal, vehemently opposed to spending money on military adventurism while secretly praying the government will pump billions into creating jobs for Americans?
Or have I become a libertarian?
Saturday, June 21, 2008
India's Disappearing Females
An eye-opener from the BBC today, reporting on UK charity ActionAid's study on the frightening disparity between numbers of girls and boys in India. In one sample site, there were just 300 girls for every 1,000 boys.
Female foetuses are detected by ultrasound, which costs just a few dollars to perform, and aborted. Other practises include letting baby girls' umbilical cords get infected by heaping dirty soil on them and letting the girls die of septicaemia.
In other cultures that favour male children, such as China, there is not an outrageous number of female foetuses aborted; nor is female infanticide as prevalent as in India.
How will India, which has made so many strides to modernise and integrate into the "global economy" deal with this genocide of half its population?
OK, so "genocide" is too strong a word, you argue, and tossed around too casually. In the last 20 years - about a generation - 10 million female foetuses in India have been aborted, according to the esteemed British medical journal Lancet.
What if a Mozzlim nation had anything even near this sort of cultural practise? That's an issue we'll explore tomorrow as we cover an explosive book allegedly written by a Palestinian woman about her experience growing up as a woman in the West Bank.
For now, here's the link to the Indian foeticide/infanticide article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7466916.stm
(And be sure to check out the side bar on the BBC site for links to seven related articles that round out the story a bit.)
Female foetuses are detected by ultrasound, which costs just a few dollars to perform, and aborted. Other practises include letting baby girls' umbilical cords get infected by heaping dirty soil on them and letting the girls die of septicaemia.
In other cultures that favour male children, such as China, there is not an outrageous number of female foetuses aborted; nor is female infanticide as prevalent as in India.
How will India, which has made so many strides to modernise and integrate into the "global economy" deal with this genocide of half its population?
OK, so "genocide" is too strong a word, you argue, and tossed around too casually. In the last 20 years - about a generation - 10 million female foetuses in India have been aborted, according to the esteemed British medical journal Lancet.
What if a Mozzlim nation had anything even near this sort of cultural practise? That's an issue we'll explore tomorrow as we cover an explosive book allegedly written by a Palestinian woman about her experience growing up as a woman in the West Bank.
For now, here's the link to the Indian foeticide/infanticide article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7466916.stm
(And be sure to check out the side bar on the BBC site for links to seven related articles that round out the story a bit.)
Friday, June 20, 2008
Israel Endorses McCain (?) or Israel Challenges Obama (?)
This is the curious headline of a speculative piece published in The Nation. Robert Dreyfuss analyses Israel's recent practise runs on bombing Iran based on a Pentagon official's anonymous quotes.
A short article, and I know it will suffer rot link soon, so here's the link and the full piece. (Interestingly, Dreyfuss deems Iran "not a suicide nation", whereas that is the exact phraseology Dershowitz uses to describe that country. Dershowitz says that Iran and its people have a suicide wish consistent with their Shi'a religion, and that this exemplifies itself in what he sees as sabre-rattling with Israel.)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080620/cm_thenation/1096331437
START ARTICLE:
The stunning display of air power by Israel in early June, unannounced but widely noticed by intelligence services worldwide, means that Israel has officially signed on to John McCain's presidential bid.
By sending more than a hundred F-15s and F-16s across Greece and the Mediterranean in a practice mission for a large-scale attack on Iran, the Israelis have upped the ante dramatically. The New York Times, which reported the action, quotes a Pentagon official who said that it was all about sending messages:
"They wanted us to know, they wanted the Europeans to know, and they wanted the Iranians to know," the Pentagon official said. "There's a lot of signaling going on at different levels."
But the most important message is to the American political system. McCain has made a point of his willigness, even eagerness, to escalate the crisis with Iran. And while Barack Obama has said repeatedly that he won't take the threat of military action off the table, he's challenged McCain over the Arizonan's refusal to talk to Iran.
So Israel is challenging Obama, too.
Most analysts do not believe that Israel has the capability to conduct an effective attack against Iran. It's too far away, its air defenses, while weak, aren't nil, and its facilities are too scattered and buried to be destroyed in the sort of attack that Israel might mount. So what does this mean?
Of course, Israel could strike Iran even in a limited way, do some damage to a limited number of Iran's nuclear facilities, and then sit back and watch the crisis unfold. Perhaps the Israelis might hope that Iran will strike back at American targets (say, in Iraq), and Israel might hope to draw the United States into a broader war with Iran. But I don't believe Iran would respond to an Israeli strike by attacking American targets, because that would be suicidal. So, if Israel acts alone, and Iran doesn't respond, Israel would suffer overwhelming world condemnation -- especially in light of the American National Intelligence Estimate saying that Iran halted its bomb-making five years ago. Israel would also be blamed by many friends and allies (say, India and Europe) for pushing oil prices toward $200 a barrel or more.
So it's most likely that Israel is hoping to push the post-Bush president of the United States into taking a more confrontational stance toward Iran. That's called blackmail. It's the "Samson complex": do what we want or we will bring the whole temple crashing down. For Obama, it's a bluff worth calling--because, ultimately, like Iran, Israel is not a suicide nation. And bombing Iran would be suicidal for Israel.
END ARTICLE
A short article, and I know it will suffer rot link soon, so here's the link and the full piece. (Interestingly, Dreyfuss deems Iran "not a suicide nation", whereas that is the exact phraseology Dershowitz uses to describe that country. Dershowitz says that Iran and its people have a suicide wish consistent with their Shi'a religion, and that this exemplifies itself in what he sees as sabre-rattling with Israel.)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080620/cm_thenation/1096331437
START ARTICLE:
The stunning display of air power by Israel in early June, unannounced but widely noticed by intelligence services worldwide, means that Israel has officially signed on to John McCain's presidential bid.
By sending more than a hundred F-15s and F-16s across Greece and the Mediterranean in a practice mission for a large-scale attack on Iran, the Israelis have upped the ante dramatically. The New York Times, which reported the action, quotes a Pentagon official who said that it was all about sending messages:
"They wanted us to know, they wanted the Europeans to know, and they wanted the Iranians to know," the Pentagon official said. "There's a lot of signaling going on at different levels."
But the most important message is to the American political system. McCain has made a point of his willigness, even eagerness, to escalate the crisis with Iran. And while Barack Obama has said repeatedly that he won't take the threat of military action off the table, he's challenged McCain over the Arizonan's refusal to talk to Iran.
So Israel is challenging Obama, too.
Most analysts do not believe that Israel has the capability to conduct an effective attack against Iran. It's too far away, its air defenses, while weak, aren't nil, and its facilities are too scattered and buried to be destroyed in the sort of attack that Israel might mount. So what does this mean?
Of course, Israel could strike Iran even in a limited way, do some damage to a limited number of Iran's nuclear facilities, and then sit back and watch the crisis unfold. Perhaps the Israelis might hope that Iran will strike back at American targets (say, in Iraq), and Israel might hope to draw the United States into a broader war with Iran. But I don't believe Iran would respond to an Israeli strike by attacking American targets, because that would be suicidal. So, if Israel acts alone, and Iran doesn't respond, Israel would suffer overwhelming world condemnation -- especially in light of the American National Intelligence Estimate saying that Iran halted its bomb-making five years ago. Israel would also be blamed by many friends and allies (say, India and Europe) for pushing oil prices toward $200 a barrel or more.
So it's most likely that Israel is hoping to push the post-Bush president of the United States into taking a more confrontational stance toward Iran. That's called blackmail. It's the "Samson complex": do what we want or we will bring the whole temple crashing down. For Obama, it's a bluff worth calling--because, ultimately, like Iran, Israel is not a suicide nation. And bombing Iran would be suicidal for Israel.
END ARTICLE
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Physicians for Human Rights: Medical Exams Prove Torture in Guantanamo and Iraq
If there was any doubt in your mind - and some of my American friends do doubt - about our brave American boys in uniform torturing those evil Eye-rackis and ragheads, let the medical record speak for itself.
Physicians for Human Rights, an organisation to which I belong, has published a report (Broken Laws, Broken Lives) documenting torture of prisoners after conducting extensive, two-day long examinations of patients who were in U.S. custody.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25218584/
http://brokenlives.info/
The scariest part is, these were the people deemed innocent by our military, men released from prison. What of those others (who may yet be innocent) who remain in prison and continue to be tortured? And what of those silent many who died while being tortured? (In a separate vein, what of those American physicians who falsified death certificates to hide that prisoners were tortured to death? This is a subject my wife has tackled elsewhere.)
Bush, Rumsfeld, and other governmental higher-ups have continually denied that we torture, issuing the feeble "bad apple" argument, but declassified documents have proven time and again that torture was authorised from the highest levels.
Why don't Americans protest against this? Where are the mass demonstrations in the streets declaring "Not in our name"? Since I don't see Americans forcefully and unequivocally denouncing the torture we routinely practise, I can only conclude that we condone it, celebrate it, even applaud it. This is precisely the argument American political commentators make regarding Mozzlims and their supposed lack of public opposition to terrorism.
Remember, it's only terrorism when "they" do it.
Physicians for Human Rights, an organisation to which I belong, has published a report (Broken Laws, Broken Lives) documenting torture of prisoners after conducting extensive, two-day long examinations of patients who were in U.S. custody.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25218584/
http://brokenlives.info/
The scariest part is, these were the people deemed innocent by our military, men released from prison. What of those others (who may yet be innocent) who remain in prison and continue to be tortured? And what of those silent many who died while being tortured? (In a separate vein, what of those American physicians who falsified death certificates to hide that prisoners were tortured to death? This is a subject my wife has tackled elsewhere.)
Bush, Rumsfeld, and other governmental higher-ups have continually denied that we torture, issuing the feeble "bad apple" argument, but declassified documents have proven time and again that torture was authorised from the highest levels.
Why don't Americans protest against this? Where are the mass demonstrations in the streets declaring "Not in our name"? Since I don't see Americans forcefully and unequivocally denouncing the torture we routinely practise, I can only conclude that we condone it, celebrate it, even applaud it. This is precisely the argument American political commentators make regarding Mozzlims and their supposed lack of public opposition to terrorism.
Remember, it's only terrorism when "they" do it.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Gore Vidal Interview in NY Times
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/magazine/15wwln-Q4-t.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=magazine&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
my god, he is truly brilliant. i would literally pay money to see him debate hitchens.
i think we do still have public intellectuals, but they're different now. dumber. media-savvy. michael moore is an example. those old-style public intellectuals like noam chomsky exist only in places like france and egypt (and in egypt they're more private than public).
vidal is like rushdie in that his essays are better than his novels. i read creation, perhaps his most-heralded, and i was already a fan of his nonfiction, ready to embrace and love everything he's ever written, and man, creation sucked. coincidentally, i was at one point travelling through the same part of ancient pakistan as a scene i was reading in the book, and even that failed to provide any frisson.
yes, i just said ancient pakistan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/magazine/15wwln-Q4-t.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=magazine&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
my god, he is truly brilliant. i would literally pay money to see him debate hitchens.
i think we do still have public intellectuals, but they're different now. dumber. media-savvy. michael moore is an example. those old-style public intellectuals like noam chomsky exist only in places like france and egypt (and in egypt they're more private than public).
vidal is like rushdie in that his essays are better than his novels. i read creation, perhaps his most-heralded, and i was already a fan of his nonfiction, ready to embrace and love everything he's ever written, and man, creation sucked. coincidentally, i was at one point travelling through the same part of ancient pakistan as a scene i was reading in the book, and even that failed to provide any frisson.
yes, i just said ancient pakistan.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Who's to Blame for Repubs Winning the White House? Why, Whitey, of course!
No, no, there's no racism in this statement, just pure truth, unadulterated and clear like spring water (except the kind infected by Giardia, which is most spring water).
In the last ten presidential elections, Republicans have won the majority of white male voters. Even Clinton, in his trouncing of Bob Dole and George Bush, lost the white male vote. In fact, he lost the overall male vote to Bob Dole in 1996 (my fact-checkers are researching whether he also lost the overall male vote to Bush in 1992).
The only reason Clinton or any other Democrat has had a prayer of winning the White House boils down to one thing: women voters. Women overwhelmingly vote Democrat, even in close races. Al Gore demolished Bush by 25 points among women voters. John Kerry owned a whopping 24-point margin over Bush among women voters. It was only the male voters in general, and white male voters in particular, who allowed Bush to win (see, it wasn't Nader, it wasn't Bush's cronies in the Supreme Court - OK, maybe it was the Supreme Court).
Bob Dole held a slight lead over Clinton among male voters, but Clinton won the election handily thanks to crushing good ol' Bob among female voters.
So "liberals", I have one thing to say to you: get men to vote Democrat. Don't even worry about the women, their vote is in the bag. Get after the men, the white men. That's where the money is.
In the last ten presidential elections, Republicans have won the majority of white male voters. Even Clinton, in his trouncing of Bob Dole and George Bush, lost the white male vote. In fact, he lost the overall male vote to Bob Dole in 1996 (my fact-checkers are researching whether he also lost the overall male vote to Bush in 1992).
The only reason Clinton or any other Democrat has had a prayer of winning the White House boils down to one thing: women voters. Women overwhelmingly vote Democrat, even in close races. Al Gore demolished Bush by 25 points among women voters. John Kerry owned a whopping 24-point margin over Bush among women voters. It was only the male voters in general, and white male voters in particular, who allowed Bush to win (see, it wasn't Nader, it wasn't Bush's cronies in the Supreme Court - OK, maybe it was the Supreme Court).
Bob Dole held a slight lead over Clinton among male voters, but Clinton won the election handily thanks to crushing good ol' Bob among female voters.
So "liberals", I have one thing to say to you: get men to vote Democrat. Don't even worry about the women, their vote is in the bag. Get after the men, the white men. That's where the money is.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
U.S. Doesn't Care About Democracy (in case you were wondering)
This article from the Associated Press tells ye all that ye need to know.
Bangladesh's government has gone on a witch hunt, arresting at least 10,000 civilians on dubious charges. Human rights activists internationally have condemned this act, calling it a "crackdown on democracy". And the U.S. government? Its voice has remained "low key".
"In contrast to its loud and repeated criticism of the governments of Myanmar and Zimbabwe, which the United States believes are subverting democracy, the Bush administration says little about a makeshift government in Bangladesh that has curtailed citizens' democratic rights since taking power in January 2007." (AP, 14 June 2008)
Richard Boucher, U.S. assistant secretary for South Asia, said that his country "needs to understand [the situation] a little better". That's odd. No one needs to "understand the situation" in Zimbabwe before condemning Mugabe as a criminal despot, which he is. No one needs to understand China's situation in Tibet before blanket condemnation of a "military crackdown" is issued.
The best response was that of Sean McCormack, spokesman for the State Department. When asked if the U.S. had any comment whatsoever on the Bangladeshi government's crackdown, he replied, "No," and said nothing else.
"As long as Bangladesh's government is doing the things the U.S. wants it to do, 'I don't think (the U.S.) is going to be terribly upset about other issues,' said Christine Fair, a South Asia specialist at the RAND Corp." (AP, 14 June 2008)
In other words, we don't care about democracy. That is, we only care about democracy when it gives us an excuse to invade your country, to commit war crimes, to murder children sleeping in their cribs, to carry out premeditated plans to rape 12-year-old girls and then shoot their witness families.
Otherwise, we don't give two shits about democracy in those ass-backward camel-fucking nations.
link to AP article by Foster Klug: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080614/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_bangladesh
Bangladesh's government has gone on a witch hunt, arresting at least 10,000 civilians on dubious charges. Human rights activists internationally have condemned this act, calling it a "crackdown on democracy". And the U.S. government? Its voice has remained "low key".
"In contrast to its loud and repeated criticism of the governments of Myanmar and Zimbabwe, which the United States believes are subverting democracy, the Bush administration says little about a makeshift government in Bangladesh that has curtailed citizens' democratic rights since taking power in January 2007." (AP, 14 June 2008)
Richard Boucher, U.S. assistant secretary for South Asia, said that his country "needs to understand [the situation] a little better". That's odd. No one needs to "understand the situation" in Zimbabwe before condemning Mugabe as a criminal despot, which he is. No one needs to understand China's situation in Tibet before blanket condemnation of a "military crackdown" is issued.
The best response was that of Sean McCormack, spokesman for the State Department. When asked if the U.S. had any comment whatsoever on the Bangladeshi government's crackdown, he replied, "No," and said nothing else.
"As long as Bangladesh's government is doing the things the U.S. wants it to do, 'I don't think (the U.S.) is going to be terribly upset about other issues,' said Christine Fair, a South Asia specialist at the RAND Corp." (AP, 14 June 2008)
In other words, we don't care about democracy. That is, we only care about democracy when it gives us an excuse to invade your country, to commit war crimes, to murder children sleeping in their cribs, to carry out premeditated plans to rape 12-year-old girls and then shoot their witness families.
Otherwise, we don't give two shits about democracy in those ass-backward camel-fucking nations.
link to AP article by Foster Klug: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080614/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_bangladesh
Sunday, June 8, 2008
On Invading Iran (Guest Column)
Guest column by DJ Razza:
I get sick every time we get ready to invade another Muslim country. This occurs at a pre-rational level. Even before I can verbalise all the arguments for or against invading, the thought of all those bombs dropping on all those children makes me nauseous.
My aunts, uncles, cousins - almost my entire family - are Muslims. They're not terrorists or mullahs or crazy people excited about murdering Americans. Yet this is what our media tell us about every person in "those countries" whenever we get ready to invade one. Even if they don't use those exact words to paint "all Mozzlims" as evil (and frequently, they do), this is the perception they give. How do I know? Because when I talk to my fellow Americans, the ones who consume television news and read the papers, these are their ideas.
As a reader letter published in TIME magazine once said, "In countries like that [Afghanistan and Sudan] there is no such thing as an innocent civilian."
No matter how much you try to explain to Americans that innocent people will die, innocent people who love freedom and honesty and decency as much you do, they simply will not get it. They will either counter with pseudoscholarly arguments like, "Islam is not compatible with democracy," or "Those people want to die for Allah, let's give 'em their wish!" or will give lip service to feeling sorry for the "collateral damage" caused by a very necessary and very just American invasion. (Only in the United States are dark-skinned human beings who live in foreign countries referred to as "collateral".)
The truth is, however, if one truly felt sorry about the "collateral damage" caused by our invasions, which perforce will exceed the "intended damage" on "military targets", then one would not invade in the first place. Britain never carpet-bombed Northern Ireland even when she was subjected to horrendous terrorist bombings, for the simple reason that the British, however much they disagreed with the politics and methods of the terrorists they could not bear to lay waste to an entire country, even though the broad majority of that country morally and materially suppoted the terrorists. No doubt they had no qualms laying waste to entire continents (Africa, the Indian Subcontinent) but Britons felt too much empathy for the Irish people, had too much contact with them, knew them too well, to be able to bomb them back to the Stone Age at the end of the 20th century.
If Americans really felt even the slightest empathy for "Eye-rackis" or "Eye-rain-ians" - and most will tell you frankly that they never have and never will (popular U.S. commentator Bill O'Reilly calls Iraqis "a primitive people" who are too stupid and ungrateful to take full advantage of the blessing of America's destroying their country) - they would not have the stomach to invade and bomb and rape 13-year-old girls. They would feel nauseous at the thought of it.
I get sick every time we get ready to invade another Muslim country. This occurs at a pre-rational level. Even before I can verbalise all the arguments for or against invading, the thought of all those bombs dropping on all those children makes me nauseous.
My aunts, uncles, cousins - almost my entire family - are Muslims. They're not terrorists or mullahs or crazy people excited about murdering Americans. Yet this is what our media tell us about every person in "those countries" whenever we get ready to invade one. Even if they don't use those exact words to paint "all Mozzlims" as evil (and frequently, they do), this is the perception they give. How do I know? Because when I talk to my fellow Americans, the ones who consume television news and read the papers, these are their ideas.
As a reader letter published in TIME magazine once said, "In countries like that [Afghanistan and Sudan] there is no such thing as an innocent civilian."
No matter how much you try to explain to Americans that innocent people will die, innocent people who love freedom and honesty and decency as much you do, they simply will not get it. They will either counter with pseudoscholarly arguments like, "Islam is not compatible with democracy," or "Those people want to die for Allah, let's give 'em their wish!" or will give lip service to feeling sorry for the "collateral damage" caused by a very necessary and very just American invasion. (Only in the United States are dark-skinned human beings who live in foreign countries referred to as "collateral".)
The truth is, however, if one truly felt sorry about the "collateral damage" caused by our invasions, which perforce will exceed the "intended damage" on "military targets", then one would not invade in the first place. Britain never carpet-bombed Northern Ireland even when she was subjected to horrendous terrorist bombings, for the simple reason that the British, however much they disagreed with the politics and methods of the terrorists they could not bear to lay waste to an entire country, even though the broad majority of that country morally and materially suppoted the terrorists. No doubt they had no qualms laying waste to entire continents (Africa, the Indian Subcontinent) but Britons felt too much empathy for the Irish people, had too much contact with them, knew them too well, to be able to bomb them back to the Stone Age at the end of the 20th century.
If Americans really felt even the slightest empathy for "Eye-rackis" or "Eye-rain-ians" - and most will tell you frankly that they never have and never will (popular U.S. commentator Bill O'Reilly calls Iraqis "a primitive people" who are too stupid and ungrateful to take full advantage of the blessing of America's destroying their country) - they would not have the stomach to invade and bomb and rape 13-year-old girls. They would feel nauseous at the thought of it.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Socialised Medicine is a Thing of Beauty
[Publisher's note: It has been a mighty long time - three months, an eternity in the blogosphere - since our heady correspondent in Africa inveighed against the depredations of Western imperialism in the third-world. In the last three months he has moved - twice - and is only now starting to settle into his new home before moving a third time in 2008 come August.]
In all the debate about health care reform in American politics - and since it is America we are talking about, perhaps "shouted slogans and sneers" is a better characterisation than "politics" - the dirty word among even Democrats, those erstwhile supporters of reform so long as it conforms 100% with Republican ideology, is "socialised medicine".
But socialised medicine, my dear readers, is a wonderful thing. Why, even libertarian financial analysts like Bill Bonner of The Daily Reckoning, an avid Ron Paul supporter, sings it praises. Bonner, an American in Paris, has a daughter working as a waitress in London. She works for paltry wages (by London standards), yet has full health care coverage under the UK's "socialised medicine" program.
Contrast her life with that of 1 in 6 Americans (and 1 in 4 Texans) who are uninsured. Many of these are professionals or more highly-skilled labourers than waitresses who lack insurance and are one major illness away from certain bankruptcy. Indeed, the leading cause of bankruptcy in these United States is inability to pay medical bills.
And yet this very idea of providing for all - universal education, universal human rights... why not universal health care? - is pooh-poohed off the stage by both right and left in the U.S. under the love-that-dare-not-speak-its-name: socialised medicine.
I am a U.S.-born, U.S.-trained physician and I am temporarily back in the U.S., practising here. I love the idea of socialised medicine. It is beautiful, it is just, it is warm, it is perfect. In a way, it is very much like the summer day Shakespeare described in Sonnet XVIII - but without the rough winds shaking the darling buds of May.
In all the debate about health care reform in American politics - and since it is America we are talking about, perhaps "shouted slogans and sneers" is a better characterisation than "politics" - the dirty word among even Democrats, those erstwhile supporters of reform so long as it conforms 100% with Republican ideology, is "socialised medicine".
But socialised medicine, my dear readers, is a wonderful thing. Why, even libertarian financial analysts like Bill Bonner of The Daily Reckoning, an avid Ron Paul supporter, sings it praises. Bonner, an American in Paris, has a daughter working as a waitress in London. She works for paltry wages (by London standards), yet has full health care coverage under the UK's "socialised medicine" program.
Contrast her life with that of 1 in 6 Americans (and 1 in 4 Texans) who are uninsured. Many of these are professionals or more highly-skilled labourers than waitresses who lack insurance and are one major illness away from certain bankruptcy. Indeed, the leading cause of bankruptcy in these United States is inability to pay medical bills.
And yet this very idea of providing for all - universal education, universal human rights... why not universal health care? - is pooh-poohed off the stage by both right and left in the U.S. under the love-that-dare-not-speak-its-name: socialised medicine.
I am a U.S.-born, U.S.-trained physician and I am temporarily back in the U.S., practising here. I love the idea of socialised medicine. It is beautiful, it is just, it is warm, it is perfect. In a way, it is very much like the summer day Shakespeare described in Sonnet XVIII - but without the rough winds shaking the darling buds of May.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Americans Don't Care (The Question of Palestine)
It's one thing to plead ignorance, it's quite another to be aware and simply dismiss the suffering of others. As Bill and Kathleen Christison, former CIA analysts, explain below, Americans are not unaware of Israel's atrocities, but simply unconcerned.
The Christisons, in addressing a group of influential American journalists, academics, and opinion-makers from across the political spectrum, find that Americans believe that any criticism of Israel's universally condemned human rights crimes amounts to anti-Semitism, and that Palestinians "deserve" to be bombed, imprisoned, tortured, starved, and thrown off their land by our client state.
Why do they hate us?
http://counterpunch.org/christison02142008.html
The Christisons, in addressing a group of influential American journalists, academics, and opinion-makers from across the political spectrum, find that Americans believe that any criticism of Israel's universally condemned human rights crimes amounts to anti-Semitism, and that Palestinians "deserve" to be bombed, imprisoned, tortured, starved, and thrown off their land by our client state.
Why do they hate us?
http://counterpunch.org/christison02142008.html
Obama and Corporate Interests
Do you think that Barack Obama is going to fight for the common man, or will he - like every other candidate in the race - be beholden to corporate interests?
Well, guess who is the number one recipient of campaign funds from the following industries: computer and Internet companies, commercial banks, health professionals, health services and HMOs, hospitals and nursing homes, lawyers and law firms, miscellaneous health care interests, pharmaceutical and health product producers, securities and investment interests (groups with serious cash), and television, movie, and music companies?
If you guessed Hillary Clinton, you're right! Guess who's in second place? A man by the name of Barack Obama.
If you think that BO is going to work for the common good of the common man, you may be a moron.
Read all about it:
http://counterpunch.org/dimaggio02182008.html
Well, guess who is the number one recipient of campaign funds from the following industries: computer and Internet companies, commercial banks, health professionals, health services and HMOs, hospitals and nursing homes, lawyers and law firms, miscellaneous health care interests, pharmaceutical and health product producers, securities and investment interests (groups with serious cash), and television, movie, and music companies?
If you guessed Hillary Clinton, you're right! Guess who's in second place? A man by the name of Barack Obama.
If you think that BO is going to work for the common good of the common man, you may be a moron.
Read all about it:
http://counterpunch.org/dimaggio02182008.html
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Eye-ran? How far'dja run?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJRcOF7rEfQ
Too bad this campaign will go nowhere. The few Americans who have an opinion about Iran want to bomb it back to the Stone Age.
Ridding Americans of our breathtaking ignorance won't be accomplished with a campaign or two, unless they last a thousand years and have billions of dollars of Madison Avenue advertising behind them.
Forgive me my realism.
Too bad this campaign will go nowhere. The few Americans who have an opinion about Iran want to bomb it back to the Stone Age.
Ridding Americans of our breathtaking ignorance won't be accomplished with a campaign or two, unless they last a thousand years and have billions of dollars of Madison Avenue advertising behind them.
Forgive me my realism.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Sunday Afternoon
ah, well, i've spent the afternoon reading about gaza and hebron. hebron, too, who knew how bad things are there? 77% of businesses closed down, 40% of people have fled their homes, israeli settlers commit acts of violence against hebronites daily. the situation is so dangerous there for palestinians that most never leave their homes (except when they're literally running for their lives). it is impossible for them to live. education, economy, and all other aspects of infrastructure have collapsed under the self-described israeli policy of "dispossession".
this is my political reality, far removed from the politics of obama vs. hillary. people like my quasi-fascist friend, abdul* (who maintained howard dean's website when he ran for prez in 2004), believe that my political reality should be determined by domestic issues alone. "i don't give a frak about palestinians," aziz once commented. but i'm more concerned with preventing death and destruction in faraway lands than i am with which politician's economic plan will improve my net worth by more fractional percentage points. i can't help it.
and so it will continue this way for some time, probably forever, and i'll feel marginalised from american politics, despondent on afternoons like this one. what is my despondency, though, compared to those living in gaza or hebron? self-pity and helplessness are useless emotions, but when you read about life in the occupied territories, it's almost impossible to feel otherwise.
Stephen Lendman's incredible report on Hebron:
http://counterpunch.org/lendman01252008.html
What would happend if just once Newsweek or Time printed a report like this? Oh, a man can fantasise....
*not his real name. quasi-fascist in jest, but perhaps in reality. he is decidedly against freedom of speech in iraq, and he believes the u.s. operation of wholesale massacre in fallujah was justified in order to promote "our interests". again, he is a nice guy, but views such as these i label "quasi-fascist", "quasi-" only because it is of late unfashionable to call someone other than george bush a fascist.
this is my political reality, far removed from the politics of obama vs. hillary. people like my quasi-fascist friend, abdul* (who maintained howard dean's website when he ran for prez in 2004), believe that my political reality should be determined by domestic issues alone. "i don't give a frak about palestinians," aziz once commented. but i'm more concerned with preventing death and destruction in faraway lands than i am with which politician's economic plan will improve my net worth by more fractional percentage points. i can't help it.
and so it will continue this way for some time, probably forever, and i'll feel marginalised from american politics, despondent on afternoons like this one. what is my despondency, though, compared to those living in gaza or hebron? self-pity and helplessness are useless emotions, but when you read about life in the occupied territories, it's almost impossible to feel otherwise.
Stephen Lendman's incredible report on Hebron:
http://counterpunch.org/lendman01252008.html
What would happend if just once Newsweek or Time printed a report like this? Oh, a man can fantasise....
*not his real name. quasi-fascist in jest, but perhaps in reality. he is decidedly against freedom of speech in iraq, and he believes the u.s. operation of wholesale massacre in fallujah was justified in order to promote "our interests". again, he is a nice guy, but views such as these i label "quasi-fascist", "quasi-" only because it is of late unfashionable to call someone other than george bush a fascist.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Prelude to Genocide
The word genocide is tossed around in careless ways these days. Is Princeton Professor Richard Falk's designation of Israeli policy toward the Gaza Strip as a "prelude to genocide" valid? Omar Barghouti, a political analyst, examines this question in the light of Israel's round-the-clock siege on Gaza, and with reference to the UN definition of genocide, on CounterPunch.org.
Link:
http://counterpunch.org/barghouti01212008.html
Link:
http://counterpunch.org/barghouti01212008.html
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Illegal to Help Starving Iraqis
Kathy Kelly, the courageous American peace activist, was charged with illegal conduct for taking food and medicines to Iraq during the years the U.S. imposed starvation-inducing sanctions. During those grim years (is today any less grim in Iraq?) rates of kwashiorkor and marasmus - types of severe malnutrition among children - increased 60-fold in Iraq due to the sanctions, according to the World Health Organisation.
Kelly and a handful of American Christian peace activists were fined, arrested, harrassed, and even imprisoned for giving food to these people because it was illegal under U.S. law to provide any succour to Iraqis. (Interesting that a few years later we kind Americans went to "liberate" these same Iraqis whom we'd bombed and starved for the previous twelve years.)
Today, an American charity called Islamic American Relief Agency (IARA) has been charged with, but not proven to be, supporting terrorist organisations. No convictions have been made proving any terrorist link, but the Justice Department is proudly touting the indictment of the charity and four of its officers for transferring $1.4 million to Iraq during the years of U.S. sanctions against that country, roughly 1991 to 2003.*
In other words, all that the IARA has been shown to have done is provide charity to Iraqis. There was no Iraqi insurgency in the years of the sanctions, there was no "al-Qaida in Iraq" (the U.S. media's favourite buzzphrase of 2007), there were no attacks on American soldiers or interests during that time. There were only starving children, over one million of whom died because of the sanctions, and an additional several hundred thousand starving Iraqi adults.
The IARA dared to feed those people. Like Kathy Kelly and her fellow Christian activists, they have been punished. Our fair, kind, and freedom-loving government has frozen their assets (millions of dollars donated by American citizens) and disallowed them from raising any more money for charity.
*See Lara Jordan's AP article dated today: "In an indictment handed down in March, the charity and four of its officers were charged with illegally transferring $1.4 million to Iraq from March 1991 to May 2003 — when Iraq was under various U.S. and U.N. sanctions."
COMING SOON: The Holy Land Foundation case in review. This is a U.S. charity that was found innocent on all of the 200-odd charges of terrorism brought against it by our government. How widely was this covered in our press? Have you heard of it?
Kelly and a handful of American Christian peace activists were fined, arrested, harrassed, and even imprisoned for giving food to these people because it was illegal under U.S. law to provide any succour to Iraqis. (Interesting that a few years later we kind Americans went to "liberate" these same Iraqis whom we'd bombed and starved for the previous twelve years.)
Today, an American charity called Islamic American Relief Agency (IARA) has been charged with, but not proven to be, supporting terrorist organisations. No convictions have been made proving any terrorist link, but the Justice Department is proudly touting the indictment of the charity and four of its officers for transferring $1.4 million to Iraq during the years of U.S. sanctions against that country, roughly 1991 to 2003.*
In other words, all that the IARA has been shown to have done is provide charity to Iraqis. There was no Iraqi insurgency in the years of the sanctions, there was no "al-Qaida in Iraq" (the U.S. media's favourite buzzphrase of 2007), there were no attacks on American soldiers or interests during that time. There were only starving children, over one million of whom died because of the sanctions, and an additional several hundred thousand starving Iraqi adults.
The IARA dared to feed those people. Like Kathy Kelly and her fellow Christian activists, they have been punished. Our fair, kind, and freedom-loving government has frozen their assets (millions of dollars donated by American citizens) and disallowed them from raising any more money for charity.
*See Lara Jordan's AP article dated today: "In an indictment handed down in March, the charity and four of its officers were charged with illegally transferring $1.4 million to Iraq from March 1991 to May 2003 — when Iraq was under various U.S. and U.N. sanctions."
COMING SOON: The Holy Land Foundation case in review. This is a U.S. charity that was found innocent on all of the 200-odd charges of terrorism brought against it by our government. How widely was this covered in our press? Have you heard of it?
Monday, January 14, 2008
Lady Di's Mom Hates Mozzlims
In a startling revelation, it was learned at Lady Diana's inquest in England today that her mother scolded her for being romantically involved with Muslim men.
As Robert Barr of the Associated Press reports today, Frances Shand-Kydd "upbraided her daughter in June 1997 for romances with Muslims. That remark came in 1997, before Diana's romance with Fayed [an Egyptian Briton], but toward the end of her affair with heart surgeon Hasnat Khan [a Pakistani Briton].
"Burrell said he heard the mother say that Diana was 'a whore and that she was (expletive deleted) around with Muslim men.'"
Wow, so a famous British person hates the darkies and the Mozzlims. No surprise there, eh, mate? As Salman Rushdie wrote in the 1980s, British people are afraid of "big, brown cocks". Except for Lady Di, who apparently loved them.
As Robert Barr of the Associated Press reports today, Frances Shand-Kydd "upbraided her daughter in June 1997 for romances with Muslims. That remark came in 1997, before Diana's romance with Fayed [an Egyptian Briton], but toward the end of her affair with heart surgeon Hasnat Khan [a Pakistani Briton].
"Burrell said he heard the mother say that Diana was 'a whore and that she was (expletive deleted) around with Muslim men.'"
Wow, so a famous British person hates the darkies and the Mozzlims. No surprise there, eh, mate? As Salman Rushdie wrote in the 1980s, British people are afraid of "big, brown cocks". Except for Lady Di, who apparently loved them.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
U.S. Admits Taped Voice May Not Be From Iranian Navy, After All
After all the hullabaloo over Iranian Navy ships supposedly threatening American military vessels in Boratesque voice and grammar, now a spokesman for the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet is conceding that the voice may not have come from the Iranians at all:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011008R.shtml [ABC News link]
Where did it come from, then? From Sascha Baron Cohen doing a voiceover?
Come on, the Iranians threaten to "explode" a U.S. Navy ship and the Americans simply keep their cool and turn away without firing a shot? This is the same U.S. Navy that downed an Iranian passenger airliner full of hajj pilgrims in 1988*. Of course, our American media with their selective amnesia conveniently neglected to make the link. And of course, our credulous American public swallowed the official U.S. military version hook, line, and sinker.
*Later, after the U.S. blamed the murder on "faulty radar equipment" - which happened to be the most sophisticated radar equipment known to man, and which happened never to malfunction that way before or since - the Navy rewarded each member of the ship with medals for bravery. What kind of sick culture gives medals to men for murdering women and children pilgrims flying home?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011008R.shtml [ABC News link]
Where did it come from, then? From Sascha Baron Cohen doing a voiceover?
Come on, the Iranians threaten to "explode" a U.S. Navy ship and the Americans simply keep their cool and turn away without firing a shot? This is the same U.S. Navy that downed an Iranian passenger airliner full of hajj pilgrims in 1988*. Of course, our American media with their selective amnesia conveniently neglected to make the link. And of course, our credulous American public swallowed the official U.S. military version hook, line, and sinker.
*Later, after the U.S. blamed the murder on "faulty radar equipment" - which happened to be the most sophisticated radar equipment known to man, and which happened never to malfunction that way before or since - the Navy rewarded each member of the ship with medals for bravery. What kind of sick culture gives medals to men for murdering women and children pilgrims flying home?
Friday, January 4, 2008
Vote Rigging in the USA
According to the testimony under oath of this computer expert, vote rigging by computer is easy, and he was asked by a U.S. Congressman to prepare such a vote-rigging program in the fall of 2000.
Believe it when you see it:
http://pkpolitics.com/2008/01/03/high-tech-rigging/
Believe it when you see it:
http://pkpolitics.com/2008/01/03/high-tech-rigging/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)