Meaningless without Context

The sineman's latest sign (which he has not posted about) says something to the effect:

"the deaths were not seen as unusual", Marine Commanding Officer, Haditha
Fox News

This "quote" as presented is fairly meaningless. Each reader will take from it what he or she chooses based on his or her preconceptions about the situation in Iraq or the Sineman. Furthering useless divisions in society, precluding productive dialogue, etc, etc. I don't think that's what the Sineman intends.

I understand there are physical limitations on what can be presented in a certain amount of space. This is evident by the size of the letters used to make the sign. He had to squeeze this onto the sign. Thing is, he (the sineman) knows this too. I think he could have come up with a better message than this.

In any event, let's consider the sign. What does it mean? Well, what question promtpted that answer? Do you see how the lack of context leaves us uncertain as the answer's true meaning??

Suppose to question was, "How did you react when the first reports of the killings were received?"

And the answer was, "Well, we've had cases of sectarian violence resulting in civilian casualties and even a few instances of out-right executions of entire families so, the deaths were not seen as unusual".

That certainly alters the true meaning of the quote doesn't it?

Now, I think I know something about the sineman and I think I know (from his previous writings) what he's thinking. I think he's asserting that, in fact, the events at Haditha were not unusual because they were part of policy or the result of a direct order. A policy or order for which he holds President Bush and his administration responsible.

My response to that is simple. Where is the documentary evidence for that? Where are the orders? Where is the policy document? Why has nobody come forward in opposition to this? Could this order or policy be kept secret? Do you really believe that?

This reminds me of the WMD issue. Bush lied we cry with regards to WMD. In spite of overwhelming evidence that Iraq did posses WMD and had not followed through with it's obligations under international law to disarm. The UK, France, Italy, Germany, nearly ever intelligence service, even Bill Clinton thought Iraq had WMD.

And yet, we ignore that. Bush knew they didn't have any. He just lied. uh huh...

And now, with regard to Haditha. There is no evidence what so ever of unlawful orders being issued to any members of the US Armed Forces. In fact, there is evidence of the exact opposite. A group of soldiers acting outside the bounds of their orders. And yet, some of us blindly assert our leaders have committed a criminal act in this case.

Why?

I also find it curious that Sineman chooses to cite Fox News. Does he watch Fox News? Or, by associating them with this quote does he mean to impune them somehow? Or, implicate them somehow? If he doesn't watch Fox News, where did he really get the quote from??

Put your cards on the table

Originally posted here: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22209

An interview with Abu Bakr Bashir with Al Jazeera, recently released from prison.

The only model to follow is pure Islam. Because Islam in its original form was tough and hard, not weak and pliable. Islam is fixed, stable, ordered and disciplined, and so are Muslims.

If we return to the real practice of true Islam we would be much stronger and that is when the kafirs will fear us. That is why we need to uphold the Shariah and return to real Islam. But the West is trying to weaken Islam from outside and inside. They attack our people and invade our countries from outside, and they weaken us from within with ideas like secularism, liberalism and democracy. This is all designed to contaminate our pure Islam.

Let me highlight a section of this for you.

...they weaken us from within with ideas like secularism, liberalism and democracy. This is all designed to contaminate our pure Islam.

So, to all those people who can't wait to vote the Republicans out of office and kick Bush to the curb...please enlighten me, how does that solve this sort of problem?

The fact is, it doesn't. The fact is, it doesn't matter who is in office, who controls congress, or which party they're from. What matters is, people like Abu Bakr Bashir, who are one of many, simply want to dominate your life.

WAKE UP PEOPLE.

When will we remember that we need to put politics aside and cooperate with eachother to guarantee our way of life? When will our leaders decide that National Security is more important than the next approval poll?

These theocrats have put their cards on the table...when will we??

Insight into Global News Coverage

With my admittedly uneducated musings about solving the problem of sectarian violence in Iraq derailed by the realization that Iran is influencing events there on a far greater scale than I though:

Weapons from Iran discovered in Iraq's port city

In the weapons cache were hundreds of Katyusha rockets and mortar shells as well as several thousand light arms, the report said, adding that the weapons had all been manufactured in neighbouring Iran.

I've decided to turn my attention to slightly lower hanging fruit. News media :) I found this article particularly interesting: LGF Exclusive: How Much Does It Cost to Buy Global TV News?

This article details the single source from which major news outlets (CNN, FOX, BBC, Sky, etc) glean their news. Interestingly, the entity, a for profit spin-off of the AP has an entire arm (equal in staffing the remainder of the organization) dedicated to the production of news coverage for the Arab world.

The questions that follow are, perhaps, obvious:

• Why does the Arab world need different news coverage from the rest of the world?


• How do the narratives within these two streams of coverage differ?


• Is it any wonder there is such a gap between our cultures??

Obstacles to another Dayton Accord

One of my ideas for helping to deal with the sectarian violence in Iraq was to implement something like the Dayton Accords. They were reasonably successful in the Balkans.

The situation in Iraq is more complex.

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2173&Itemid=30

Al-Qaida in Iraq, through the media and other grassroots propaganda, will promote a theme that portrays the Sunnis as under attack by coalition forces, and the government of Iraq as being corrupt. They aim to rally Sunni support by conveying al-Qaeda in Iraq as a Sunni protectorate. They then attempt to promote themselves as the defender of the oppressed instead of a terrorist organization.

Al-Qaida in Iraq is making a concerted effort to gain legitimacy by marketing itself to the Iraqi people as a credible, helpful organization that appeals to Iraqis in desperate social and economicsituations while projecting a civic-minded image. They have produced propaganda that blames coalition forces and the Iraqi government for problems such as unemployment, security, government corruption, gas prices and the lack of power, in hopes that this will empower them to take on the role as their protectorate.

Al-Qaida in Iraq wants to present itself as a legitimate organization. They're striving to increase its operational power by building a political base with a military wing, not unlike that of other extremist organizations that have turned to politics in order to grow roots.

Al-Qaida in Iraq realizes killing of innocent Iraqi civilians has damaged their public support and is working to reverse that perception. By no means does it mean they intend to stop creating sectarian violence, but rather change the perception.

So, the people of Iraq may be perfectly capable of living together afterall. The problem is (according to this briefing) outside influence. Additionally, and more troubling, these folks seem to have learned something from Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Isn't curious that Hezbollah and Al-Qaida aren't exactly buddy-buddy and yet, they seem to be employing similar tactics in terms of winning over a portion of the local population to affect their own political aims. I wonder if there's something more to this? Some shared leadership? Coordination?

Where would that come from? Iran? Maybe?

A Constructive Idea

A Novelty? No, an idea, supported by a bit of history, with an eye toward a more peaceful future.

Ever hear of Tito? Yugoslavia? A land of differing people, held together for decades by fear. Fear of its liberator dictator, Tito, backed by Moscow. Eventually, Tito died, and eventually, Yugoslavia fell apart. What followed was war, destruction, and a new term, Ethnic Cleansing. It didn't end until the West (liberal democracies) intervened and brought the parties together to sign the Dayton Accords. Perhaps preventing the death of tens of thousands of Muslims.

Years later, peace, thriving democracy, and life for all parties.

Iraq was carved from the deceased Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI and given to the British by the League of Nations. It was granted indepenence briefly before the British seized it again in 1941 fearing loosing it's supply of oil at a critical time (WWII). After the British released it, a series of coups followed which led it into the hands of the Ba'ath party. Iraq's Tito, backed by a crazy combination of the US and Moscow. Now that the Ba'ath party is gone, the differing people of Iraq are unable to live with eachother. We're led to believe that sectarian violence (violence between different sects of a religion) is occuring daily in various cities.

If this is the case, perhaps another version of the Dayton Accords can be implemented to secure a peaceful co-existence. Divide the factions. Let them establish goverments, limited police forces, economies, guarantee human rights, free commerce, etc. Divide the nation's wealth among the factions. FORCE cooperation between the factions at the highest levels. In time, a decade?, perhaps, these factions will choose to unite again as a peaceful community. But at least, give them to the tools to live, to ability to choose, the chance to succeed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/.../diplomatic/main1071933.shtml

One key point:

It’s hard to imagine a scenario where significant numbers of U.S. troops will be in Iraq a decade from now, given the political pressure to withdraw them. But clearly there will have to be the same kind of patience and commitment shown by the international community in rebuilding Iraq for many years if the reconstruction effort is to be as successful there as it has been in the Balkans.

"...given the political pressure..." perhaps the political pressure would shift under a more concrete plan.

How to Ignore the Obvious

Recently I've been thinking about a portion of Winston Churchill's account of his time as PM of Great Britian during WWII. Specifically, the section titled The Gathering Storm. In it, among many other things, he details how he constantly warned of German efforts to re-arm in direct opposition to international law and treaty. He shows how, in spite of having the facts at hand, politicians took action based on willful ignorance. Choosing to negotiate and barter...based on a policy now known as appeasement.

The reason I've been thinking of this lately is I feel that we (the liberal democracies of the "west") are falling into the same trap with respect to Iran and its influence on events around the world. And also a slightly smaller degree, radical islam.

• Iran seeks nuclear weapons in spite of signing an international agreement to the contrary.


• Iran supplies and incites terrorist groups to illegal acts (Hezbollah crossing a international border to kill and kidnap).


• Iran brutally and relentlessly opresses civil opposition within its own borders.


• Iran certainly harbors Al Queda


• Iran incites unrest and violence in Iraq

Iran's clandestine involvement in Iraq certainly has complicated our work there. To what degree we'll never be sure. Did we anticipate this? Probably not. We certainly should have.

Iran does all this with No consequences what-so-ever. It's met with negotiation and...impotence. What is our govermnet doing to prevent Iranian interference in Iran? Lebanon? Elsewhere? The current situation shares many similarities with that of pre-war Nazi Germany. Not the least of which is the goal of the radical islamists. Hence the term islamic fascists.

Will the west wake up in time? Have we learned anything from the past? In an age of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, how many will have to die before we do?

In a comment to sinemans' post: http://sineman.blogspot.com/2006/08/bush-opposes-nation-building.html, shawnm stated,

August 11th...the sign has been removed...has someone become afraid again and stolen it?

We should all be afraid. Although, I suggest, not of the sineman or his signs.

umm...say that again?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis was to destroy Israel, state-media reported.

In a speech during an emergency meeting of Muslim leaders in Malaysia, Ahmadinejad also called for an immediate cease-fire to end the fighting between Israel and the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah.

How can a reasonable mind reconcile those two statements?


See the original post here: http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000902.html

Perspective Alternative

In response to : http://sineman.blogspot.com/2006/07/how-much-more-barbaric-can-peace.html

The main reason (not one of reasons, not "the ostensible reason") for invading Iraq was to topple a dictator, plant the seeds of a democratic government, and thereby remove a military thread to the region and the world. This threat was evidenced by the Iran-Iraq War, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and the decade of Iraq's refusal to comply with U.N. resolutions. These are by way of example not limitation.

Has this threat been removed? Let's answer this by looking at a neighbor of Iraq that, over the same span of time, has been bartered with, pandered to, negotiated with, and "dialogued" with. Iran. Iran is building nuclear weapons by all accounts. Iranian agents observe North Korean missile tests. Iran funds, trains, and insights international terrorists by all accounts, including the current crisis between Hezbollah and Israel. Iran refuses to comply with U.N. resolutions and is nearly completely isolated from the international community. Iran is an immense regional and potentially world-wide threat.

Iraq does not fund, train, or insight terrorists. Iraq is not developing *any* weapons nevermind nuclear weapons. True, Iraq is a struggling country facing many, many problems but, it does not threaten is neighbors with destruction.

When a gunman enters a Jewish Community Center in Seattle and shoots six people because they are jewish that's a hate crime.

When Hezbollah fighters launch unguided rockets filled with ball bearings into Israeli towns as part of a two decade old effort to wipe Israel off the map (because they're jewish)...it's part of the resistance?

No, it's hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Everyone MUST remember that Hezbollah's goal is the destruction of Israel. And it's not because of some dispute over land. That's a mere pretext. It's because of deep anti-semitism.

Matthias Kuntzel (a German politcal scientist) studied and explains how the Nazis steadily grew a loose relationship with dissatisfied Arabs, particularly in Palestine, until they actually began broadcasting Arab-language propoganda in 1939. Now, you tell me, what sort of messages do you suppose the Nazis sent them???

You can probably figure it out for yourself but, I'll give you a hint: Anti-semitism wasn't big in the middle east until around this time...