In Sunday’s Observer, Henry Porter wrote a simply fantastic article about multiculturalism in Britain today. His piece reminded me that there are still sane, intelligent and, let’s be honest, sensible people in the world. Commendations, Mr Porter.
You can read it here.
12 February, 2007 at 5:09 pm |
Very interesting article. Something ive thought for a while. I watched the dispatches episode he mentions, did you?
One mistake i think is to put the onus on the muslim community though “id like to see muslims take the lead”
This wont happen because to a large extent muslims are victimised and marginalised, which is one reason for increased radicalisation. These worrying statistics about muslim opinion havent come from nowhere. Young muslims hold respect for al-quaeda for a reason.
So, not being muslim, I am not to sit back, moan about muslim clerics and tell “moderate” (cant stand that word) muslims to sort it out.
I should be speaking out about and seeking to halt/mitigate the crimes of my own government which do lead to the indiscriminate slaughter of muslims.
The uncomfortable truth is that when Abu Hamzir shouts “Democracy? Hypocrisy!” He has a strong point.
This doesnt justify preaching hate about gays, Jews, women etc. But we have to face up to the fact that cause and effect is real when observing sociological phenomena.
People gravitate more easily to fundamentalist islam when they know “their people” are having hell on earth brought to them by western powers. When media hysteria constantly alientates their communities etc. etc.
This doesnt mean that the fact that saudi trained muslim clerics are preaching these things is our fault, but simply means that we should not expect/wait for, or even care whether muslims take the lead against fundamentalism, but that the onus is on everybody to try and reverse the tide by holding our governments to account for their vastly more serious crimes.
The observer article is right on the whole, but has an unhealthy self-righteous stance. Remember, all the broadsheets newspapers are complicit with UK foreign policy, because the criticism never goes far enough, and is restricted by bias.
12 February, 2007 at 8:11 pm |
Yeah, nice argument ste, i broadly agree with what you are saying.
One thing though. This: “Remember, all the broadsheets newspapers are complicit with UK foreign policy, because the criticism never goes far enough, and is restricted by bias” goes too far in my opinion. I don’t think independent media outlets are ‘complicit’ with the government’s foreign policy simply because they don’t rant and rave like the Morning Star.
13 February, 2007 at 1:17 am |
well, the idea that a radical opposition to war from an anti-imperialist standpoint (for example) is a fringe view in the media, tather than a mainstream one, is obviously a result of media control by the rich (amongst other things, to be discussed if you like)
At the end of the day, the invasion + occupation of iraq, and the bombing + occupation of afghanistan are war crimes under international law. the punishment for which, if we observe the nuremberg principles, is hanging! (i dont agree wit hanging but the point remains)
rant and rave, no. give serious analysis of the facts…PLEASE!
13 February, 2007 at 3:27 am |
“well, the idea that a radical opposition to war from an anti-imperialist standpoint (for example) is a fringe view in the media, tather than a mainstream one, is obviously a result of media control by the rich (amongst other things, to be discussed if you like)”
- i’m not sure i like the black and white terms you are putting this forward in. Sounds like you’ve regressed five years and are sat in your bedroom listening to Rage Against the Machine! 1)Don’t misuse the term imperialism. Imperialism describes something historically very specific, and it’s NOT the actions of the modern US or UK. Just because the misuse of the term imperialism is widespread, doesn’t mean it’s correct or ok to misuse it.
2)I’m not sure that it is a ‘fringe view’. Have you picked up a copy of The Independent recently?
3)’Obviously’ the result of a media ‘controlled’ by the rich? Really? Murdoch doesn’t own everything by a long shot, not even the Daily Mail, and who owns the BBC? Constitutionally, and to some extent also in practice, the license payers do. I’m not aware of any rich conspirators owning the Guardian. This is an Anti-Flag line you are using; drop it like a hot coal.
“the invasion + occupation of iraq, and the bombing + occupation of afghanistan are war crimes under international law”
- i agree that Iraq is relatively clear cut. But Afghanistan? A country controlled by the Taliban is directly linked to the worst (non-state implemented) terrorist attrocity in history, and you say invading the country the Taliban controls is a war crime? Not sure at all that you are right there. I rather think that Afghanistan is a necessary fight, and one of the many tragedies of Iraq is that it detracts attention, resources and troops from what was originally a far more important fight, for far more noble reasons.
13 February, 2007 at 3:41 pm |
Im only being black and white cos of this format. Its not like this a super serious discussion with any real consequences.
Im curious to know why imperialism is an inappropriate word for the invasion of a country to put in place a regime which favours your interests in order to control its oil reserves, and build strategic military strongholds. What is it then? This is probably just semantics, but it certainly fits my definition of imperialism. If we are to tighten the definition of imperialism to discount this kind of thing then that is dangerous, because it stops people thinking about the issue in terms that relate properly to reality. Maybe its not the same as imperialism in the past, but its still fundamentally the same process.
The bombing of Afghanistan was a disgusting crime against humanity which was incredibly unjust. I must go to work, soon, so i cant put a detailed argument here, but ill be back later, for if you think there is anything noble about what we have done to Afghanistan then you are wrong.
“The Scott Trust own The Guardian Media Group plc. It is a board of 10 members who are chosen from areas of the media industry that reflect GMG’s business interests. Its main aim is to ensure the commercial success of the Group and to uphold the Trust’s values.”
Its a non-profit organisation itself, however, guardian media group is still under private control.
The general trend in Britain however is concentration of ownership of media organs into fewer hands. cross-ownership of the media is something Guardian media group, amongst others have lobbied against, however its still happening, and even liberal groups such as this arent free from the filters put in place by private ownership by the wealthy.
I will post a more detailed discussion here tomoorrow, so you might as well not reply to this, in fact im not sure why i posted it. Got to go to work.lol
Ste
14 February, 2007 at 10:44 am |
Having given blanket, black and white stamps of opinion in a couple of my posts, I have been charged with sounding like I have “regressed five years, and am sitting in my room listening to rage against the machine” and that some of my views represent an “Anti-Flag line” which should be dropped like a “hot coal”. If you read my previous statements, these criticisms are understandable.
I am attempting then, in the next couple of posts to provide more detailed arguments, which you may or may not agree with, but which set the record straight that I am not being whimsical or emotional and childish with my views.
AFGHANISTAN
I criticise the bombing and occupation of Afghanistan by US-UK (amongst others) forces as a horrendous atrocity. I am told however, that these actions have been “necessary” and the fight is “noble”. This is flatly false.
1) INTENT
For a fight to be noble, in my view it must be fought with noble intent. Let us then summarise the possible intentions that lay behind the initial bombing in 2001.
I) The US wanted to get their hands on the terrorists who were responsible for 9/11
II) The US wanted to “liberate” the people of Afghanistan from the tyrannical rule of the Taliban, and promote peace in the middle east by replacing a regime supportive of Islamic terrorists with a democratic one.
III) The US wanted to kick start the “war on terror” with a heavy show of force, gaining a strategical advantage and frightening the governments of the world. All if this is done entirely in their own economic/political interests of maintaining hegemonic power throughout the world.
Intentions I and II are nice hypothetical ideas, but in light of relevant facts, cannot be real.
In June 2002, Robert Mueller, FBI director testified before a senate committee giving a detailed public comment on the origins of the 9/11 attacks. In this statement he said that we “think the attacks…came from Al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan”. So 8 months after the bombing intelligence was only strong enough to assume that the terrorists were operating from Afghanistan. Surely then, there can have been nothing approaching certainty around the issue 8 months earlier.
The Bush administration demanded the hand over of the terrorists by the Taliban, threatening to bomb if they did not comply. However, the Taliban refused as they were not given any evidence by the US, the US refused to give any evidence and so proceeded to bomb. If you’re real intentions were obtaining the terrorists, then this is not a sane strategy.
After the bombing began, 1000 Afghan leaders, all committed to the overthrow of the Taliban, met in October 2001 and urged the US to stop the bombing of innocent people. They called unanimously for other means to kick out the Taliban, which would not involve the destruction of a nation, and the wanton killing of innocent people. This was all ignored.
If liberation and democratisation are the aims, then what regime has been put in place since the overthrow of the Taliban? The Northern Alliance, which is made up largely of corrupt Islamic extremists, even former Taliban, friendly to western interests, who are showing utter contempt for human rights, particularly those of women. Check out anything written recently by the RAWA (the main women’s rights organisation in Afghanistan) to get a more detailed picture. Formal democratic structures are in place, but as the RAWA consistently point out, are rendered meaningless when living in a war-torn country, decimated by bombs, with a corrupt government that abuses human rights being held in place by US support.
Reparations have not been paid in full since the bombing, instead, war on the ground has ensued, leaving large parts of the population hungry and without access to decent healthcare, all the while worried about being injured/killed as a result of the fighting.
The failure to repair the country by the perpetrators of the bombing is largely what has led to the resurgence of the Taliban, for by providing for people’s basic needs, they have gained popular support in many areas.
III can is the only intention, in my view, which is compatible with the facts, without assuming that the politicians of the US and UK are actually insane.
2) ATROCITY
The expected consequences of bombing Afghanistan were reviewed by aid groups and human rights groups prior to the bombing. They warned that massive starvation could well ensue, as aid is blocked from getting into the country, but the need for it increases as parts of the country are blown up.
Sure enough, it was demanded by the perpetrators that aid convoys from Pakistan stop providing aid to Afghanistan, despite the fact that according to previous UN estimations, millions of Afghans just about subsisted on international food aid. The World Food Program was forced to suspend deliveries of aid, and their frequency and size were decreased even after resumption. The UN Commissioner for Refugees commented that we were facing a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions.
Although mass starvation didn’t ensue to this extent, 7.5 million people (UN estimate) were knowingly put at risk of starvation. Luckily it didn’t turn out that bad, but that’s beside the point. Luckily the Cuban Missile Crisis didn’t cause nuclear holocaust, but that doesn’t make it right.
The numbers killed directly by the bombing are unknown, but estimates are in the thousands. A million people have been forced to flee their homes during the war, most of them into remote countryside where they cannot receive aid. Blair explicitly rejected appeals to stop the attacks so that aid could reach these people. In early 2002 the death toll was approaching 100 a day.
I think that’s enough to prove that this was atrocious.
Even after my evaluation of the intent which lay behind the bombing, and my quick analysis of the expected and actual consequences of the bombing and the war, you may still think that on the whole the invasion was justified, possibly because you still think that the Taliban are bad guys, terrorists must be brought to justice, and democracy rules. Lets try a simple thought experiment.
It was justified to Bomb Afghanistan because their government supported (supposedly) Islamic terrorists, and they abused human rights.
The US has funded terrorism and actively commited it, often with UK support for decades. The terrorist war against Nicaragua had far more dire consequences than 9/11. If the Sandanista party regain power, would they then be justified in bombing America and Britain?
America provided arms to the IRA during the troubles. Since they supported terrorist agressors, are we then justified to bomb the USA?
The Sudan suffered an attack on a pharmaceuticals plant in 1998 by the Clinton administration. This cut medical supplies for the majority of the population and led to thousands of deaths. Are the Sudanese then justified if they bomb USA?
US funded regimes in Latin America have committed some of the worst human rights abuses in recent history, from land evictions to death squads, to torture. Should the UK step in as a good guy start bombing Columbia, and threatening to bomb America if they don’t cut military aid?
The Turks in their (counter-terror) campaign in the Kurdish regions of the south committed a horrific program of “ethnic cleansing” which approached a mini-genocide. 80% of their arms came form the USA. Should we have intervened, bombing Turkey and threatening to bomb America?
Bombing and invading are ludicrous solutions to these problems, that is obvious. But when we actually do something equally absurd, the population justifies it in their head, without thinking like a rational human being. Its outrageous.
Post about the media possibly to come later. I’m bored of writing right now.