So 'Zarqawi' is finally dead. It was an interesting piece of news that greeted us yesterday morning (or was it the day before? I've lost track of time...). I didn't bother with the pictures and film they showed of him because I, personally, have been saturated with images of broken, bleeding bodies. The reactions have been different. There's a general consensus amongst family and friends that he won't be missed, whoever he is. There is also doubt- who was he really? Did he even exist? Was he truly the huge terror the Americans made him out to be? When did he actually die? People swear he was dead back in 2003... The timing is extremely suspicious: just when people were getting really fed up with the useless Iraqi government, Zarqawi is killed and Maliki is hailed the victorious leader of the occupied world! (And no- Iraqis aren't celebrating in the streets- worries over electricity, water, death squads, tests, corpses and extremists in high places prevail right now.) ,,,,, How do I feel? To hell with Zarqawi (or Zayrkawi as Bush calls him). He was an American creation- he came along with them- they don't need him anymore, apparently. His influence was greatly exaggerated but he was the justification for every single family they killed through military strikes and troops. It was WMD at first, then it was Saddam, then it was Zarqawi. Who will it be now? Who will be the new excuse for killing and detaining Iraqis? Or is it that an excuse is no longer needed- they have freedom to do what they want. The slaughter in Haditha months ago proved that. "They don't need him anymore," our elderly neighbor waved the news away like he was shooing flies, "They have fifty Zarqawis in government." So now that Zarqawi is dead, and because according to Bush and our Iraqi puppets he was behind so much of Iraq's misery- things should get better, right? The car bombs should lessen, the ethnic cleansing will come to a halt, military strikes and sieges will die down... That's what we were promised, wasn't it? That sounds good to me. Now- who do they have to kill to stop the Ministry of Interior death squads, and trigger-happy foreign troops?
The reactions have been different. There's a general consensus amongst family and friends that he won't be missed, whoever he is. There is also doubt- who was he really? Did he even exist? Was he truly the huge terror the Americans made him out to be? When did he actually die? People swear he was dead back in 2003... The timing is extremely suspicious: just when people were getting really fed up with the useless Iraqi government, Zarqawi is killed and Maliki is hailed the victorious leader of the occupied world! (And no- Iraqis aren't celebrating in the streets- worries over electricity, water, death squads, tests, corpses and extremists in high places prevail right now.)
,,,,,
How do I feel? To hell with Zarqawi (or Zayrkawi as Bush calls him). He was an American creation- he came along with them- they don't need him anymore, apparently. His influence was greatly exaggerated but he was the justification for every single family they killed through military strikes and troops. It was WMD at first, then it was Saddam, then it was Zarqawi. Who will it be now? Who will be the new excuse for killing and detaining Iraqis? Or is it that an excuse is no longer needed- they have freedom to do what they want. The slaughter in Haditha months ago proved that. "They don't need him anymore," our elderly neighbor waved the news away like he was shooing flies, "They have fifty Zarqawis in government."
So now that Zarqawi is dead, and because according to Bush and our Iraqi puppets he was behind so much of Iraq's misery- things should get better, right? The car bombs should lessen, the ethnic cleansing will come to a halt, military strikes and sieges will die down... That's what we were promised, wasn't it? That sounds good to me. Now- who do they have to kill to stop the Ministry of Interior death squads, and trigger-happy foreign troops?
I always assume they know where most of these people are but view that as a card to be played at a useful time. keep to the Fen Causeway
Dana Olmert takes part in left-wing demonstration outside army chief's house; protesters call Halutz 'murderer,' declare 'intifada shall prevail.' Meanwhile, human rights groups send letter to PM, defense minister, calling on them to stop war crimes in territories Avi Cohen Some 200 left-wing activists marched outside the house of IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz at the Tzahala neighborhood in Tel Aviv Saturday evening, to protest the killing of civilians in Gaza on Friday. The demonstrators chanted slogans such as "Tzahala residents, there's a murderer in your neighborhood," and raised signs calling on the government to "put a stop to the murder of civilians" and stating, "Halutz is a killer, the intifada shall prevail." Activists also shouted, "neighbors, ask Halutz why he's killing children and how many." Dana Olmert, the daughter of Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, also took part in the demonstration. About 30 policemen arrived at the place to maintain order, but allowed the rally to proceed uninterrupted. Some of the neighborhood's residents, however, were less pleased with the disturbance and squirted water on the protesters from inside their houses.
Some 200 left-wing activists marched outside the house of IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz at the Tzahala neighborhood in Tel Aviv Saturday evening, to protest the killing of civilians in Gaza on Friday.
The demonstrators chanted slogans such as "Tzahala residents, there's a murderer in your neighborhood," and raised signs calling on the government to "put a stop to the murder of civilians" and stating, "Halutz is a killer, the intifada shall prevail." Activists also shouted, "neighbors, ask Halutz why he's killing children and how many."
Dana Olmert, the daughter of Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, also took part in the demonstration. About 30 policemen arrived at the place to maintain order, but allowed the rally to proceed uninterrupted. Some of the neighborhood's residents, however, were less pleased with the disturbance and squirted water on the protesters from inside their houses.
A top US official has described the suicides of three detainees at the US base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as a "good PR move to draw attention". Colleen Graffy told the BBC the deaths were part of a strategy and "a tactic to further the jihadi cause", but taking their own lives was unnecessary. But lawyers say the men who hanged themselves had been driven by despair. A military investigation into the deaths is under way, amid growing calls for the centre to be moved or closed. Speaking to the BBC's Newshour programme, Ms Graffy, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, said the three men did not value their lives nor the lives of those around them. Detainees had access to lawyers, received mail and had the ability to write to families, so had other means of making protests, she said, and it was hard to see why the men had not protested about their situation.
Colleen Graffy told the BBC the deaths were part of a strategy and "a tactic to further the jihadi cause", but taking their own lives was unnecessary. But lawyers say the men who hanged themselves had been driven by despair.
A military investigation into the deaths is under way, amid growing calls for the centre to be moved or closed.
Speaking to the BBC's Newshour programme, Ms Graffy, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, said the three men did not value their lives nor the lives of those around them.
Detainees had access to lawyers, received mail and had the ability to write to families, so had other means of making protests, she said, and it was hard to see why the men had not protested about their situation.
According to the Planning Group for Integration of USIA into the Dept. of State (June 20, 1997), public diplomacy is defined as follows: "Public Diplomacy seeks to promote the national interest of the United States through understanding, informing and influencing foreign audiences."
"Public Diplomacy seeks to promote the national interest of the United States through understanding, informing and influencing foreign audiences."
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy?
..."understanding, informing and influencing"?
Sometimes I think they make these gaffes on purpose. How else can one explain this?
From the NYT:
Democrats in the United States said little, apparently concerned about appearing to be sympathizing with detainees who could turn out to have significant terrorist connections.
But earlier, the camp commander, Rear Adm Harris said he did not believe the men had killed themselves out of despair. "They are smart. They are creative, they are committed," he said. "They have no regard for life, either ours or their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us."
"They are smart. They are creative, they are committed," he said.
"They have no regard for life, either ours or their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us."
LONDON (Reuters) - A senior U.S. official rowed back on Monday from remarks by colleagues that Guantanamo Bay prisoners' suicides were an act of war and a "good PR move," after the comments were condemned abroad. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs Cully Stimson, speaking to BBC radio, distanced himself from the statements. "I wouldn't characterize it as a good PR move. What I would say is that we are always concerned when someone takes his own life. Because as Americans, we value life, even the lives of violent terrorists who are captured waging war against our country," he said. The camp commander, Rear Admiral Harry Harris, had described the three suicides as an act of war. Colleen Graffy, U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for public diplomacy, told the BBC on Sunday the deaths were "a good PR move." In an editorial headlined "Bad Language," the right-leaning Times, normally a defender of Britain's alliance with the United States, said such rhetoric "plays once again into the hands of America's enemies." The left-leaning Guardian described Admiral Harris's remarks as "cold and odious." "The demented logic of Dr Strangelove hung like a ghost" over the U.S. response to the suicides, it said. Britain has been Washington's closest ally in Afghanistan and Iraq, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been cautious in criticizing Guantanamo, which he describes as an "anomaly." But senior British officials have increasingly openly called for the camp to be closed down. "If it is perfectly legal and there is nothing going wrong there, why don't they have it in America?" Constitutional Affairs Minister Harriet Harman said. "It is in a legal no man's land. Either it should be moved to America and then they can hold those people under the American justice system or it should be closed." ...
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs Cully Stimson, speaking to BBC radio, distanced himself from the statements.
"I wouldn't characterize it as a good PR move. What I would say is that we are always concerned when someone takes his own life. Because as Americans, we value life, even the lives of violent terrorists who are captured waging war against our country," he said.
The camp commander, Rear Admiral Harry Harris, had described the three suicides as an act of war. Colleen Graffy, U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for public diplomacy, told the BBC on Sunday the deaths were "a good PR move."
In an editorial headlined "Bad Language," the right-leaning Times, normally a defender of Britain's alliance with the United States, said such rhetoric "plays once again into the hands of America's enemies."
The left-leaning Guardian described Admiral Harris's remarks as "cold and odious." "The demented logic of Dr Strangelove hung like a ghost" over the U.S. response to the suicides, it said.
Britain has been Washington's closest ally in Afghanistan and Iraq, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been cautious in criticizing Guantanamo, which he describes as an "anomaly."
But senior British officials have increasingly openly called for the camp to be closed down.
"If it is perfectly legal and there is nothing going wrong there, why don't they have it in America?" Constitutional Affairs Minister Harriet Harman said.
"It is in a legal no man's land. Either it should be moved to America and then they can hold those people under the American justice system or it should be closed."
...
Their camouflage uniforms bear no insignia. Their machine guns lack the brassy patina of long use. Instead of boots, most wear sandals or flip-flops. The armed men swarming this mysterious town, usually off limits to foreigners, look almost, but not quite, like soldiers. Their allegiance does not appear to be to any military commander, but to a tall, copper-skinned man in a white robe and turban named Musa Hilal. Mr. Hilal, the sheik who the State Department and human rights organizations say is an architect and perhaps the key leader of the fearsome Arab militias that have unleashed a torrent of misery in Darfur, laughed softly at the question of who these armed men were. "They are soldiers," he replied with an easy smile in a rare interview here. "Just regular soldiers." But the commander of the African Union peacekeeping base two dozen miles away, Col. John Bosco Mulisa, said there was little doubt who these men really were. "They are janjaweed," he said, using the local term for the Arab militias. "This town is their headquarters." Whoever their commander is and whatever they are called, these men and the weapons they carry will determine whether, after three years of conflict that has left at least 200,000 dead, the fragile efforts to bring peace to this shattered region will succeed or fail.
The armed men swarming this mysterious town, usually off limits to foreigners, look almost, but not quite, like soldiers. Their allegiance does not appear to be to any military commander, but to a tall, copper-skinned man in a white robe and turban named Musa Hilal.
Mr. Hilal, the sheik who the State Department and human rights organizations say is an architect and perhaps the key leader of the fearsome Arab militias that have unleashed a torrent of misery in Darfur, laughed softly at the question of who these armed men were.
"They are soldiers," he replied with an easy smile in a rare interview here. "Just regular soldiers."
But the commander of the African Union peacekeeping base two dozen miles away, Col. John Bosco Mulisa, said there was little doubt who these men really were.
"They are janjaweed," he said, using the local term for the Arab militias. "This town is their headquarters."
Whoever their commander is and whatever they are called, these men and the weapons they carry will determine whether, after three years of conflict that has left at least 200,000 dead, the fragile efforts to bring peace to this shattered region will succeed or fail.
Is calling the present conflict a 'War on Terror,' just a dangerous misappropriation of an advertising gimmick? According to this analysis from France's Le Figaro newspaper, Washington's careless word play has belittled its own authority, and has placed a 'puny, unrepentant miscreant like Zarqawi' on an equal footing with Bush himself.
Our concern, as Western listeners, came first of all from the fact that George Bush thought it right to personally announce this news. It makes us a bit queasy to see the President of the United States, head of the most powerful country in the world, calling a puny, unrepentant miscreant that turned to violent Islam his direct adversary, as though Zarqawi was in enemy on Bush's level. Hitler's suicide in his bunker on April 30, 1945 was instantly known by the Allies' intelligence services at the time. That was an event fo which a public announcement from either U.S. President Harry Truman or British Prime Minister neither a great ideologue nor the leader of a great nation. He was merely a gang leader who took advantage of the disintegration of the Iraqi state to cause even more chaos in that country. Commenting on the death of the Jordanian killer, President Bush said: The ideology of terror has lost one of its most visible and aggressive leaders. That is the second thing that bothers us. The ideology of terror is a confusing notion, based on the hollow War on Terror, invented by President Bush after the monstrous attacks against American soil on September 11, 2001 (3,000 civilians assassinated). There is not, nor has there ever in history been, an ideology of terror. There have been ideologies, like communism and Nazism, the leaders of which used terror to impose or consolidate their power. The attacks of September 11 were committed by Mohammed Atta and his associates, in the name of the totalitarian ideology that is now spreading quickly in the world: Islamism. It is an ideology that not only organizes societies politically, but governs people's private lives, up to and including their most personal behavior.
Hitler's suicide in his bunker on April 30, 1945 was instantly known by the Allies' intelligence services at the time. That was an event fo which a public announcement from either U.S. President Harry Truman or British Prime Minister neither a great ideologue nor the leader of a great nation. He was merely a gang leader who took advantage of the disintegration of the Iraqi state to cause even more chaos in that country.
Commenting on the death of the Jordanian killer, President Bush said: The ideology of terror has lost one of its most visible and aggressive leaders. That is the second thing that bothers us. The ideology of terror is a confusing notion, based on the hollow War on Terror, invented by President Bush after the monstrous attacks against American soil on September 11, 2001 (3,000 civilians assassinated).
There is not, nor has there ever in history been, an ideology of terror. There have been ideologies, like communism and Nazism, the leaders of which used terror to impose or consolidate their power. The attacks of September 11 were committed by Mohammed Atta and his associates, in the name of the totalitarian ideology that is now spreading quickly in the world: Islamism. It is an ideology that not only organizes societies politically, but governs people's private lives, up to and including their most personal behavior.
The problem is, the minute someone who matters pulls the plug on the US dollar, the economy of the whole world will suffer greatly. The question is whether things will reach a point where the international community will think stopping the US' foreign policy is worth the price of a global recession. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
BBC - Whaling nations set for majority Pro-whaling nations look set to command a majority of the votes when the International Whaling Commission (IWC) annual meeting begins on Friday. Several countries which appear likely to vote with the pro-whaling bloc have joined the body in recent weeks. UK marine affairs minister Ben Bradshaw said he is "very concerned". A pro-whaling majority could lead to the scrapping of conservation and welfare programmes, though not a return to full-scale commercial whaling. That would need three-quarters of the delegates to vote in favour, which is extremely unlikely. But a simple majority would be enough to end IWC work on issues which Japan believes to be outside its remit, such as welfare and killing methods, whale-watching and anything concerning small cetaceans such as dolphins.
Pro-whaling nations look set to command a majority of the votes when the International Whaling Commission (IWC) annual meeting begins on Friday. Several countries which appear likely to vote with the pro-whaling bloc have joined the body in recent weeks. UK marine affairs minister Ben Bradshaw said he is "very concerned".
A pro-whaling majority could lead to the scrapping of conservation and welfare programmes, though not a return to full-scale commercial whaling.
That would need three-quarters of the delegates to vote in favour, which is extremely unlikely.
But a simple majority would be enough to end IWC work on issues which Japan believes to be outside its remit, such as welfare and killing methods, whale-watching and anything concerning small cetaceans such as dolphins.
Eating fish or lizards on the other hand, is a lot harder to amalgamate to eating mammals ... ie. it's easier to go "awwww ain't that cute" when seeing a calf breast-feeding but harder to say the same thing when seeing a lizard dump eggs in the sand somewhere and walk away. Eating birds ... I don't know, it kind of sucks too ... they go tweep tweep, are (mainly) monogamous, care for their little lones ... so that should make them prone to "awwww ain't that cute" syndrome too.
I just don't think I get the whole "I'll eat this mammal but not this one, which is man's friend (or man's cousin)" thing.
In my philosophical view, if you can farm blue whales you are welcome to eat them, but I think there is a decent argument for opposing them becoming extinct just because you like their flavour.
