|
« Britain's mortal sickness
Main Do get a different beautician, dear » |
December 02, 2003
War on terror
Amir Taheri in today's Times makes the important point that the ongoing insurgency in Iraq is not 'guerrilla warfare' against an occupying oppressor but terrorism. It is not a popular uprising with general backing but, in the main, terrorist activity by the Ba'athist remnant (with foreign support). Undoubtedly, the persistence and even escalation of these attacks has been helped by bad mistakes made after the war proper ended -- not least the wrong assumption that all the fighting had ended, when as the British envoy to Iraq Sir Jeremy Greenstock observed on the Today programme, (8.10am) there was still a residue which had to be dealt with. As Taheri writes: 'What we are witnessing is terrorism — and strong policing is the only way to combat it...What the coalition needs — and has failed to establish — is a counter-terrorism force that can hunt down the remaining Fedayin and the criminal gangs that work with them. This is not a task for the conventional war machine which the coalition has assembled'. Against a blizzard of the usual anti-war defeatism emanating from Today presenter John Humphrys, Greenstock managed to provide a sane and balanced picture of Iraq. Yes, the security problems are immensely serious and troubling. But there are large areas of the country which are peaceful, and many thousands of Iraqis are living normal lives with children going to school and university, traffic jams, teeming markets and falling crime. Of course the situation isn't normal -- and the recent Spanish and Japanese casualties, he said, had failed to observe the necessary precautions against terror, no doubt because the situation seemed to them to be too normal. But who in their right mind would have thought that, at this stage after a war that liberated an already devastated and terrorised country, things would turn normal overnight? The assumption that after such a war, violence simply stops and everything snaps into democracy mode is not only ahistorical but absolutely idiotic. The absence of balance in the reaction here to the undoubtedly serious and troubling situation in Iraq is frightening. Posted by melanie at December 2, 2003
Comments
Melanie, Frightening but not surprising.Too many of those who opposed the war now wish to see the coalition fail, as that is the last chance to give a justification for their original position. This really is the killer question which no one in the anti- war camp can handle."Would you prefer that the war had never happened and Saddam was still in power?" They can bluster and waffle all they like ,but there is no way round it without admitting the moral bankruptcy of their position,provided of course that their interviewer doesn't let them off the hook as Paxman eventually did with Kilfoyle. To paraphrase an old saying "Those whom the Gods wish to make mad, they first make them hate America" Posted by: dave fordwych at December 2, 2003 12:38 PMThe Spanish Intelligence Officers killed this week apparently made the mistake of having an adviser who had formerly neen with Saddam's secret police; and the 4 newcomers who were being given the introductions by the four outgoing officers, represented together the entirety of Spain's Iraq Intelligence capability.
"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988). http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html Looks like terrorism to me Beefheart. There are legitimate questions to ask about security, but to constantly bang on about whether Iraq is "normal" does not help the situation. Did Humphries and the Today editor really think that as the US tanks entered Baghdad that a wave of magic would follow behind making Iraq a model liberal democracy? No-one said this process would be easy, least of all Bush and Blair, so why is Humphries trying to imply things should be "normal" in Iraq? Is it because of a wish to be impartial? Some types of impartiality may in themselves be immoral or morally questionable. Being impartial in a discussion about those trying to prevent increase security, and those who wish to withdraw forces prematurely and leave the Iraqis to a bloody civil war is a prime example. If you take that course of impartiality you can end up defending crimes against humanity on the basis of impartiality, or perhaps the more subtle example of calling suicide bombers militants instead of terrorists. Impartiality is not about equal treatment, but rather that everyone be treated as an equal. On that basis the terrorists should not be treated as equivalent to the coalition forces; they have no legitimate claims and are obstructing the creation of a civil society and the hand-over of power to the Iraqi people that is the long-term aim of the coalition forces. Posted by: Anthony at December 2, 2003 01:18 PMGoing off on a tangent slightly, but does anyone know what the Iraqi civilian casualty figures are? (Ideally a reliable figure, with sources, not something somebody has just pulled out of their arse). Posted by: Sir Humphrey at December 2, 2003 01:27 PMI know that under Saddam Husseien an average of approximately 3000 people a month were murderd. Thats leaving aside the torture chambers and rape rooms. Posted by: Richard at December 2, 2003 01:45 PMRichard that wasn't the question I asked tho? 3000 a month eh? Thats nothing. well he was in power for 23 odd years, so that makes just about 850,000 people. According to UN figures the UN sanctions resulted in the deaths of 1/2 million Iraqi children. In 96 UNICEF reports that more than In 1998 WHO reports that 5,000 to 6,000 children
The usual retort to this is that these deaths are Saddams fault not ours. I reckon its a very cold right wing nutter who can wash their hands of the deaths of 1 1/2 million people and walk away with a clean conscience. Posted by: MIke at December 2, 2003 02:26 PMMike if you're looking for right-wing nutters then you've come to the right place. It's the Telegraph letters page on acid around here. Posted by: Sir Humphrey at December 2, 2003 02:36 PMSir Humphrey, I don't know if anyone is collecting figures for numbers of Iraqis killed, but I'm pretty sure the Iraqi terrorists are emulating the French Resistance in at least one respect - they are killing far more of their fellow-citizens than they are of the enemy. Posted by: Martin Adamson at December 2, 2003 02:40 PMI know, If there was a right wing alternative to wacky baccie then Mz Philips would be on it. Posted by: Mike at December 2, 2003 02:57 PMhttp://timblair.spleenville.com/archives/005222.php Martin,
So our actions resulted in the deaths of 1 and 1/2 million people but Saddam had $10 million in the bank, Not sure I follow your second point? It matters not. People die and people are killed. The situation is the one we face, it is a reality not an option. There is no alternative scenario but to battle through the one you have, it is the nature of warfare.....too often people have not had to face consequences in life, too often they run away or justify inaction; when you face situations as in Iraq it is taking the next step, then the step after that.......there is no alternative path. Time to read Kipling's "If" Posted by: John of Gaunt at December 2, 2003 04:28 PMThe point, Mike, that it was not "our" actions that resulted in the deaths of civilians. (And the sanction death numbers were provided by Saddam, of course, who is known to make that tiny fib occasionally, in any case.) But the point is that there was enough money, with the sanctions, to provide food and medication for Iraqis, if that was what Saddam chose to spend money on. That he chose to spend the money on guilded palaces or nuclear weapons instead is not proof that "Saddam is a bad egg." It's proof that sanctions by themselves were not the problem. Posted by: angua at December 2, 2003 04:51 PMMike you are trolling. Posted by: Barry at December 2, 2003 04:55 PM"So our actions resulted in the deaths of 1 and 1/2 million people but Saddam had $10 million in the bank,
Perhaps you would have preferred that Saddam not have been contained and he was free to do his dirty work of supporting terrorism? Not enough that he paid every Palistinian jihadi's family $25K for murdering innocent Jews in pizza parlors? Had the sanctions not been in place perhaps Saddam might have had the bomb by now. Are you far enough away from a direct hit or even the fall-out? Do you give a damn about that or would you rather that the Saddams of the world do their thing "in peace"? I would suggest you visit some of the Iraqi bloggers for a reality check: http://www.healingiraq.com/
Riverbend These people have lots of information to share with you about the realities of living under Saddam and what must be done to curb Islamic terrorism by the whole world—not just the US. Be sure to THINK a bit about this from your comfy life in West. A life you would not have if it had not been for the US coming to save your bacon! And if you have nothing better to do then why not volunteer to help the Iraqis now. Lili
Here is an item that might be of interest in this discussion: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3254028.stm By Barnaby Mason According to what is described as the first truly representative survey of Iraqi opinion, people in Iraq believe that the best thing that happened in the past 12 months was the demise of Saddam Hussein's regime.
The national survey was carried out by Oxford Research International through more than 3,000 interviews in October and November; it was commissioned by Oxford University and done at the same time as audience research for the BBC World Service. This scientific survey carried out by Iraqi graduates trained for the job reveals the obvious and the less obvious, the complexities and contradictions of human nature. Asked to come up with the best and worst things over the past year, Iraqis overwhelmingly said the end of Saddam Hussein's regime on the one hand; and the war, bombings and defeat on the other. Over the next 12 months, they wanted peace and stability and a better life in material terms; what they feared most was insecurity, chaos and civil war. Desire for democracy Asked to choose the form of government Iraq needed now, 90% of those interviewed - in their own homes - said an Iraqi democracy, and overwhelmingly rejected the idea that democracy was only for Westerners and would not work in Iraq. But more than two-thirds also wanted a strong leader; slightly fewer (61%) agreed that the government should be made up mainly of religious leaders; and there was little support for the American-British occupation authority continuing to play a role. In contrast with all other Iraqi institutions, religious leaders command the trust of the people - though when asked to suggest the best thing that could happen in the next year, fewer than 1% said an Islamic government. Continuing mistrust One of the survey's most striking findings in a country emerging from dictatorship was that only one in 10 Iraqis thought most people could be trusted; nine out of 10 agreed that you had to be very careful in dealing with people, and nearly half said they would never discuss politics with others. Despite everything, though, most respondents felt they were in control of their lives, and the results indicated that in an international context Iraqis were not particularly dissatisfied. The organisation responsible for the survey says its fieldworkers faced significant risks. Two were arrested and others were repeatedly questioned and sometimes attacked by suspicious interviewees, police and security forces. The interviewees were chosen by a system of random sampling designed to reflect the distribution of population, the balance between men and women, and Iraq's religious and ethnic mix.
Well, now. It appears the Iraqis at least comprehend that it was a GOOD THING to get rid of Saddam. One wonders if they will ever ask why the rest of the world, especially their Muslim "brothers" and the oh-so compassionate EU, did not help them? Lilith Posted by: Lilith at December 2, 2003 07:34 PMI tire of constantly being told by our friends in America that we'd all be speaking German if it weren't for them. Perhaps they too have forgotten that they wouldn't be speaking English if it weren't for us? Posted by: M Wilkins at December 2, 2003 08:25 PMDo the Americans speak English then ? Until 1850 the bulk of their immigrants were German. I thought the only reason that the US fought GErmany was because Adolf Hitler dared them to on 11th December; four days after Imperial Japan had thrashed them at Pearl Harbour. I somehow think if the US had continued to be as passive as over USS Panay in 1937, they would have been speaking Japanese....as a Pacific country ......Japan would have been in California whereas Germany would be digesting the Middle East after moving down from the Crimea. In fact 80% German casualties were on the Eastern Front where few Americans saw action. Posted by: Romulus at December 2, 2003 08:30 PMI believe the Americans speak English. Well, a bastardised version of it, anyway. Why do you think it was called 'the Colonies' Romulus? M Wilkins Christ you're an effin' snob! "I first become aware of the group in the early Seventies through a Tone which began to creep into dinner party conversations. Later, working in the [BBC], I oft heard the Tone around the corridors and in the tea rooms. By the Eighties the Tone had evolved into a political Creed and by the Nineties it had become virtual Dogma. It is a set of attitudes which now permeate the arts, the [BBC] and most educational institutions. It is possessed by people whom conservative politicians like to call "Left wingers" and the [BNP types] call "intellectuals", though in truth they are neither left wing nor intellectual. They are sometimes described as "Yuppies", though they usually shun the conspicuous consumption that characterises that group. I have struggled for twenty years to put a name to this set of beliefs and the people who hold to them - or to even describe them adequately - but somehow they have always slipped through the linguistic net like an intellectual superfluid. Recently however I finally saw what the attitude is and it is simply this: it is *snobbery*." -- Ian McFadyen, 1998 Posted by: Murph at December 2, 2003 10:05 PMIt's amazing how snobbish "left-wing" Euros can be, isn't it Murph? The elitist sniffery on the Guardian's "leftwing" talkboard is so thick you can almost cut it with a knife. All folks with the proper bleeding hearts for humanity and the "oppressed", mind you. But if you really want to see them go ape shit, start posting conservative political opinions as a black or Latino. I've seen these "anti-racist" campaigners describe a conservative Latino man as a "toilet cleaner" and other derogatory and plainly racist terms. But really, haven't they (the Euro ruling class) always been obsessed with social class and the need to keep down The Wrong Kind of People? It's just that the definition of who makes up The Right Kind of People has changed, but not the underlying need to feel superior to someone, somewhere. Posted by: Susan at December 2, 2003 10:16 PMActually, I don't think M. Wilkins is a snob. I think he just wants to appear clever. Waste of bandwidth but there you are. Posted by: Theodopoulos Pherecydes at December 2, 2003 11:24 PM"But really, haven't they (the Euro ruling class) always been obsessed with social class and the need to keep down The Wrong Kind of People?"
What's wrong with being a snob anyway? I don't think you are a snob M Wilkins. I shall continue to look down on you ! Posted by: Trace at December 3, 2003 08:46 AMHow does that old TW3 sketch go? But let me just say that I'm honoured to be looked-down upon by such august company! Posted by: M Wilkins at December 3, 2003 12:10 PM"I believe the Americans speak English. Well, a bastardised version of it, anyway. . . " Only the Southerners, like Bush, dear Wilikins. LOL The rest of us can pronounce nuclear! I can affect an English accent from many regions, can you affect an American one? We have several you know. Speaking like Bush is easy. . . just drop the end of your words and half your education. So which sort of "English" do you speak, Mr. Wilkins—the sort they speak on "EastEnders" or at Eton? ;-) Perhaps it's the one from "Keeping Up Appearances". Had any candle-lit dinners lately old boy? Do tell us who was on the guest list. Did they speak the Queen's English?
"Attacks by Arabs on Jews in France Revive Old Fears GAGNY, France, Nov. 26 — The boys hide their skullcaps under baseball caps. The girls tuck their Star of David necklaces under their sweaters. Their school in this middle-class suburb east of Paris has been scorched by fire and fear, and those are the off-campus rules. Early one Saturday in November, unidentified vandals set fire to the new two-story wing of the Merkaz Hatorah School for Orthodox Jews that was set to open as an elementary school in January. The fire prompted President Jacques Chirac to call an emergency cabinet meeting and declare that "an attack on a Jew is an attack against France." It also intensified an agonizing debate over the definition and extent of anti-Semitism today in France, and indeed all of Europe, and forced the French government to redouble its efforts to combat it. . . " HA! Didn't France say "We are all Americans" after 9/11? ======= "You've noticed the "Third Way" types too. Of course Schroeder, Blair, Chirac, Junckers, Prodi and that awful Joschka Fischer and his terrible Fanatic Party have ruined Europe for normal people.......but how do we get rid of them ? There are no elections so I can remove the European Commission. We cannot vote on the Euro Constitution. We have no say on the Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice Treaties ........." Perhaps you can have demonstrations, Romulus? Going to the barricades always works for the French. Come on! The people of Europe are directly responsible for their politics today. Don't blame anyone else. Blaming is an Arab sport. It will get you nowhere, just as it has gotten them nowhere. I as an American must take responsibility for the Bush people, even though I did not vote them in. Lot's of people are looking into and trying to fight the Bush system sans allies. It's only a matter of time before the worm turns. Lili Posted by: Lilith at December 3, 2003 02:40 PM "Come on! The people of Europe are directly responsible for their politics today. Don't blame anyone else. Blaming is an Arab sport. It will get you nowhere, just as it has gotten them nowhere"
Romulus—For Pete's sake! Democracy is a wonderful thing. Get off your derrière, organize protests, write letters, use the power and magic of the (American invented) internet to organize and mobilize. You know, whenever I go to Europe, which is rather often, I hear and see nothing but unhappy people with extremely negative attitudes. They piss and moan about EVERYTHING. But, they don't DO anything except sit in those cafe chairs. That is the primary difference between "adolescent" America and "old" Europe. We still believe that something can and will be done. While Europe, like the Arabs, is convinced that nothing can be done. Our fate is in OUR hands! Always has been. Lili PS—Those "illegal" trade subsidies will harm everyone. The Euros don't seem to want to remove theirs either, especially the French agri ones. ;-) OTOH—I don't think it is wise to give up the ability to be self sustaining, do you? Posted by: Lilith Paloma at December 3, 2003 05:28 PM"Democracy is a wonderful thing. Get off your derrière, organize protests, write letters, use the power and magic of the (American invented) internet to organize and mobilize"
Lilith you do not understand the European Union; there is nothing in your history that is similar; maybe the US Congress for a Black under the JIm Crow Laws perhaps........to be subject to an authority overruling national parliaments, yet not accountable or elected..........perhaps if George Bush signed a treaty ireevocably transferring the authority of the US Congress to the United Nations Security Council you would appreciate things. Posted by: Romulus at December 3, 2003 06:47 PMYes, Romulus, I've noticed the "Third Way" types as well, the unelected professional bureaucrats, NGO directors and acemdics who rule the European roost for their own profit and gain. Really who are they, but the replacements for the Hapsburgs, the Hohenzollerns, the Saxe-Coburgs, the Bourbons, the Oldenburgs and the Romanovs? Sometimes they are one in the same. Otto Von Hapsburg, heir to the Hapsburg throne, was a Euro Parliament member for Austria, as I recall. Not sure if he is still there. Posted by: Susan at December 3, 2003 08:44 PM"Lilith you do not understand the European Union; there is nothing in your history that is similar; maybe the US Congress for a Black under the JIm Crow Laws perhaps........to be subject to an authority overruling national parliaments, yet not accountable or elected..........perhaps if George Bush signed a treaty ireevocably transferring the authority of the US Congress to the United Nations Security Council you would appreciate things." I assure you that I DO understand the EU, Romulus, as do many other people. I can read, I am an educated person, one who has lived abroad for many, many years. Just as you presume to "understand" the US, so do many of us understand the EU. Again, you live in a supposed democracy. ORGANIZE! Lili The EU is not a democracy. There is no forum Lilith. Posted by: Romulus at December 4, 2003 07:11 AM"The EU is not a democracy. There is no forum Lilith."
With that typical defeatist attitude no wonder there is so much divisiveness in the EU. Carry on! LOL Lili Posted by: at December 4, 2003 03:01 PMLilith you persist in being obtuse. It does not matter what any one country does; just as the US Govt has no option on the WTO but to accede or face bankrupt orange growers in Florida. You cannot challenge inter-governmental treaties in Courts; it is a principle of sovereign immunity. You have no notion of the structure of the EU, which is why the change has to be violent because it cannot be democratic. Posted by: Romulus at December 4, 2003 03:57 PM"Lilith you persist in being obtuse. It does not matter what any one country does; just as the US Govt has no option on the WTO but to accede or face bankrupt orange growers in Florida. And you, Romy persist in being ignorant not to mention arrogant in your ignorant views about how the democratic process works or does not work. "You cannot challenge inter-governmental treaties in Courts; it is a principle of sovereign immunity. You have no notion of the structure of the EU, which is why the change has to be violent because it cannot be democratic." Why is it that you presume that only YOU know about the "structure of the EU"? Who the Hell are YOU? Other people can read, travel, live or were born abroad and have a notion of how the world works. "Violence"!? That is your answer? Thanks anyway. I believe in the democratic process. Protests and grass-roots organizing are hardly court actions. This is getting too silly. If the rest of the public is as ignorant as you are about the power of the people then the Islamists won't have to do much to take over. Pardon me while I once again laugh at you, Romy. ROTFLMAF!!!!!!!! Lili |
