Apparently not an oxymoron.
I’ve been thinking this over, and the only conclusion i can come to is that they are the thickest people ever to have lived. Even by Neo-Nazi standards.
Assylum Campaign Tuesday, Aug 21 2007
Current Affairs and Middle East and Politics 1:03 pm
It’s taken me far too long to relay this, but hopefully it’s not too late (obviously what follows is not my own, but i support it of course):
WE CAN’T TURN THEM AWAY
Since British troops occupied Southern Iraq in the spring of 2003, thousands
of Iraqi citizens have worked for the British Army, the Coalition
Provisional Authority ()South) and for contractors serving UK forces. There
is now considerable evidence that their lives, and the lives of their
families, are at risk: some former workers for the British have been
murdered, and many others have fled to neighbouring countries or gone into
hiding in Basra. The British Government, for whom they were ultimately
working, has not offered them the right of asylum in the UK. This is morally
unacceptable. It is also unnecessary, since we are well able to accommodate
several thousand Iraqi refugees, most of whom already speak English and all
of whom have already worked for our country.
The most detailed recent report, by Jonathan Miller of Channel Four news,
notes the murder of 17 translators in one single incident in Basra. It cites
the cases of hundreds of others who have fled to a refugee existence in
nearby Middle Eastern countries or are in hiding in Iraq. (http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/iraqi+translators+feel+abandoned/530257
<http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/iraqi+translators+feel+abandoned/530257> ) The British Government response has come from the Home Office, which has suggested that Iraqis put at risk by their work for British troops ‘register with the UN refugee agency’. Other reports provide supporting detail: Iraqis are being targeted for murder
because they have worked for British forces.(http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1990392.ece
<http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1990392.ece%C2%A0>
; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1622581.ece
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1622581.ece> )
Marie Colvin’s report for the Times of April 8 speaks of desperate former
workers for the British Army being turned away from the British embassy in
Syria by staff who had orders not to admit any Iraqis. These brave men and
women have testimonials written by British officers
If you feel that this is unacceptable and that Britain should prevent Iraqis
from being murdered for the ‘crime’ of working for British troops, could you
please write to your MP and ask him or her to press the Government for
action. You can use the excellent website ‘Write to Them’ (http://www.writetothem.com/ ) or post a letter yourself.
Please be courteous when writing to your MP. It would be a good idea to read
the reports above, and cite relevant facts. We would suggest that your
letter could contain the following points:
* It is morally unacceptable that Britain should abandon people who are at
risk because they worked for British soldiers and diplomats.
* This country will be shamed if any more Iraqis are murdered for the
‘crime’ of having supported UK forces.
* Iraqis who worked for British forces should not be told to leave Iraq and
throw themselves on the mercy of United Nations relief agencies in Arab
countries: these agencies are already being overwhelmed by the outflow of
Iraqi refugees, and Iraqi refugees who have worked for British diplomats or
troops may well be targeted by local jihadists.
* There is plentiful evidence that armed groups in Iraq kill the families of
those they consider ‘enemies’: for this reason we must extend the right of
asylum to the families of those who worked for us.
* It is entirely practical for this country’s troops in Iraq, and its
embassies in neighbouring countries, to take in Iraqis who have worked for
us and fly them to the UK. Indeed, there is already considerable anger among
British servicemen that Iraqis are being abandoned in this way.
* This country is large enough and rich enough to accommodate several
thousand Iraqi refugees. Denmark has already given asylum to all 200 Iraqis
who worked for its smaller occupying force.
* It does not matter what your MP’s views (or what your views) are on the
invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. People who risked their lives
for this country’s soldiers are now being abandoned by the British
Government. Their lives can and must be saved by their being granted the
right of asylum in this country.
* This policy should be implemented regardless of whether British soldiers
stay in Iraq or are soon withdrawn. But it must be introduced soon:
applications for asylum cannot be processed in a lengthy fashion, as the
security situation in Basra is deteriorating rapidly, and delay is likely to
lead to further killings of Iraqis who worked for British troops.
Salman Rushdie Sunday, Jun 24 2007
Current Affairs and Middle East and Politics 1:32 pm
Although as a general rule i think knighthoods, honours and so forth are symbolic of a bye-gone era, and represent the last vestiges of a lost empire Britain can’t let go of. But in this case i’ll make an exception.
I’m really glad that Salman Rushdie gets a knighthood. Not really because he’s a great author (which he is – but Cliff Richard got a knighthood and he should be shot for crimes against civilisation so there’s no correlation here). Rather, because it’s a nice clear message to those who would attempt to bully us into restricting freedom of speech and expression, and who do it either by declaring that somebody is to be murdered, or by crying ‘offence’ – see previous post for that particular rant. Giving Rushdie a knighthood is, whatever else it might be, a nice little way of saying we will not be bullied. And I like that.
Some other quick reflections while we’re here. First, that a spokesman from Tehran pointed out that because Rushdie mocks Jesus as well as Mohamed in The Satanic Verses, Christians should condemn him also. I think this is the wrong conclusion to draw. I think the right conclusion is to observe that religion need not necessarily be about terrorising people and trying to control them. Which leads to a second reflection; that if God is so almighty that we must do nothing by praise him, can’t he stand up for himself? I mean, can’t he murder Rushdie himself, or at least send his sole to hell? Equally, if one’s faith is truly stable, surely one could just ignore Rushdie and despair for his soul which is surely bound for hell, rather an obsessing over him and giving him lots of publicity?
But then again, those reflections i think bring out the real issue here – that it’s never been about God at all, it’s always been about the people who want to act on his behalf.
I-ran Wednesday, Mar 28 2007
Current Affairs and Middle East 10:55 pm
So, are we going to go to war with Iran?
Ironic really, isn’t it? Iraq was never a threat, and the war is a pointless exercise in blood-shedding and facilitating the promotion of extremist Islam.
But commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan rule out any serious threat that we could pose to Iran. And Iran know it. What a pretty pickle B, B and the Neo-Cs have gotten into.
And how long before Comrade Putin turns the power back on to that uranium enrichment plant? Not long i’d guess; probably just long enough to time it so that Russia (or Russia via Iran) can shit on the UK and USA from the greatest possible height. And you know what, I can’t say we didn’t have it coming, or that we don’t really deserve it.
Just a shame so many innocent people are going to die (sooner or later). If ’shame’ is the right word. Which it obviously isn’t.
Over and out.
I Am Legend: A Post-Iraq Possibility Friday, Dec 28 2007
Current Affairs and Middle East and North America and Sagar's Social Commentaries Paul Sagar 1:45 pm
The other day when staying in France I went with my cousins to see I Am Legend (although in France they call it Je Suis Une Legende, so they lost something in the translation there). I was pleasantly surprised. A film in which Will Smith is the last man in New York, and he has to save the world…well it sounds nauseating. However it’s surprisingly gripping, and his acting is at times very convincing and shows an emotional depth I never thought he had. After I’d seen it though I couldn’t help but put my analysis hat on, and I’ve come to the conclusion that it is a film which could only have been made post-Iraq, and represents a significant shift in American attitudes, or at least tries to encourage said shift. Below is my analysis, although I warn anyone who hasn’t seen it that this contains major plot spoilers.
Firstly, the zombie-killers that have taken over the world are enormously allegorical on a number of levels. In the film they were the result of an attempt by American science to make the world a better place, but something went wrong and in America’s cock-sureness it created a monster (or several billion of them). This is straightforwardly allegorical for a number of things: the American invasion of Iraq with the aim of ending dictatorship and spreading liberal democracy resulting only in chaos and bloodshed; the fact that much of the Muslim world has become embittered against the spread of American values and culture – which the American spread only with good will and intention – as well as with American foreign policy; the arming of the Taliban in Afghanistan in the 1980’s to stop the spread of communism resulting in a new and more deadly enemy emerging (in the film, the virus that turns people into zombies was originally developed as a cure for cancer). If one was pushing the boat out, one could say that the figure of a blood-thirsting zombie psychopath, who is both intelligent and resourceful in killing people, but cannot be reasoned with, is pretty much the American popular conception of Muslims in general.
Developing the last point, towards the end of the film Will Smith discovers a cure for the virus, but it’s too late. The zombies have broken into his compound and are going to kill him. Through the bullet-proof glass that is about to be shattered by the head zombie, he pleads with them to stop because he now knows how to cure them, having learned from the error of Man’s ways. But they do not – cannot – listen to him. These creatures that have been made by man might slowly be saved with great effort – but many of them will have to be killed. It’s not too hard to read into that particular scene, although if my reading is correct it is interesting to note that Americans are now starting to face up to the fact they may have had a hand in creating their latest and most deadly enemies.
The film also has messages about American values in the post-Iraq world, not just commentary about Muslims as zombies. For example, in the aforementioned scene when Smith has discovered the cure, he locks a young boy and a woman who have recently come into the film in a bomb-shelter thing. Then he blows himself up with a hand grenade to take out all the zombies in his house. There are a number of messages here.
Firstly, just before the zombies attack Smith repudiates any belief in God. He believes that God never existed, only man’s follies. By the end of the scene with the hand grenade, he has received a sort of subtly-pulled off revelation. The message is that God looks after good people, though they may have to put up with immense hardships in the intervening period. This is reminiscent of loads of stuff in the Bible of course, the Book of Job, the Israelites spending 40 years in the desert, the Flood that destroys all but righteous Noah and his family etc. Generally it’s just a message about God, that all Americans can continue to easily digest.
Secondly, it is worth noting that the woman who comes into the film is Puerto Rican. Here we have a Latin American woman who not only saves an American’s life at a crucial moment, but goes on to transport the anti-virus that will save the world. Again the message is clear: America has shat on its “back yard” since it became America, but now it realises that the War on Terror might go an awful lot better if the peoples of South America repudiate past injustices and abuses and rally behind the U.S.
Thirdly, Will Smith says repeatedly in the film that he cannot leave New York because that is where the zombie crisis began, and this is where he must stay to put things right. He simply cannot leave until the job is done, even if that means he must die in the process. It’s not hard to think of somewhere in the real world Americans have decided they wont leave until the job is done, no matter how many must die in the process.
Fourthly, and most importantly of all, there is one over-riding message about individual American attitudes. Whereas in the past, American films have often had a dominant feel-good factor, with the all-American hero saving the world and being reunited happily with his family in the final scenes – take as a prime example another Will Smith film (which happens this time to be total tosh), Independence Day - I Am Legend is different. To begin with, Smith’s wife and daughter are dead. The film springs this cleverly by making you think that they are alive and waiting for him, but we find out that they died the night New York descended into zombie-ridden anarchy. In the end, Smith sacrifices his own life to save that of others, indeed to save the world. There is no happy ending for him, and so the message is clear: modern American man may have to sacrifice everything to safeguard the future, and even before he does that he may have to accept that those he loves and cares for – those who are completely innocent – may have to suffer and die. The message in a post-9/11, post-Iraq world is again pretty obvious.
So there you have it, a short run-through of the major propaganda messages embedded in Holywood’s latest. Having said all that though, it is surprisingly enjoyable and gripping as a disaster-action movie, and as I mentioned Smith’s acting, for example his relationship with his dog who is his only friend, and his portrayal of the effects of total isolation on a man, is convincing and at times moving. This is a far better propaganda film than, say, Top Gun, which is just sickening from start to finish, or Independence Day, which is just tripe. But ultimately, this is a film with an awful lot of messages for young Americans.
6 Responses »