Inevitable and inadmissible

[imomus]

In today's Observer Yahia Said publishes a piece of commentary headlined Asking Why Will Dignify Criminals and straplined "The bombers are psychopaths without political worth".

"Many in London and round the world are looking for meaning behind the atrocities of 7 July," Said, a research fellow at the London School of Economics specialising in Iraq, writes. "Why did they do this? What is their goal? What did we do to provoke them? Is there anything we could do to dissuade them from doing it again? There is no political answer to these questions... To try to divine a political goal, let alone a rational agenda, behind such attacks would only dignify these criminals and feed into their illusions... The best political reaction to the atrocities is to ignore them."

While I agree that to ignore the bombings might be a good reaction (in the Christian or Gandhian sense of failing to respond in kind, escaping the cycle of violence, turning the other cheek), I find it unsettling that an academic is so resistant to asking "why". Surely we try to understand "even" psychopaths and criminals, and perhaps particularly those people? Isn't it precisely when we don't understand something that we need to ask why most urgently? Our rationality is not just there to help us understand the kind of thoughts we would have. And even if we only understood our own cultural logic, we would alas have to recognize indiscriminate bombing as something we do too, for reasons rational and irrational.

We wouldn't ask security services or policemen to "ignore the atrocities" or stop asking the question "why?", so I wonder why we accept this logic from commentators, and listen when they suggest that politicians do likewise? The fact is that politicians, policemen and security planners have prepared for a 7/7-style event in London ever since 9/11, and with increased intensity since the invasion of Iraq. On January 21st 2003, two months before the invasion of Iraq, Tony Blair said he expected terror groups like Al Qaeda to attack Britain. CNN reported:

"I believe it is inevitable that they will try in some form or other," Blair told a committee of MPs on Tuesday... Blair predicted the public would eventually back a war against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq if other means of disarming him failed. He said he understood people's concerns but said if he did have to order military action, the public would find it "acceptable and satisfactory because there is no other route available to us."

After the Madrid bombings, in which 200 Spaniards were killed by Al Qaeda bombs, the "inevitable attack on London" theme re-surfaced. "A terror attack on London is inevitable," said Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir John Stevens. "It would be miraculous if London escaped attack," echoed Mayor Ken Livingstone. Cabinet minister Peter Hain said the UK was a "frontline target" for attack by international terrorists. UK security services, he said, were working "three times harder than ever" in a bid to foil possible attack. Hain, leader of the Commons, said "anyone resisting international terrorism becomes a target." Home Secretary David Blunkett urged people to be "alert but not alarmed" and said it was "quite likely a terror attack was being planned against the UK".

However, now that the "inevitable" attack has happened, those, like George Galloway, who've made any link between 7/7 and the Iraq war have been vilified.

"London has reaped Mr Blair's involvement in Iraq," Galloway said, contradicting Home Secretary Charles Clark's statement that 7/7 had nothing to do with Iraq or any other particular foreign policy, but was "a fundamentalist attack on the way we live our lives."

Galloway continued: "The terrorists themselves have said... that that's exactly why they carried out the act. So only a fool believes that this came out of nowhere. It came out of a deep swamp of hatred and bitterness that we have soaked in blood these last few years. This is obvious to any sentient being. And the only way that we can truly resolve this matter -- and of course, in the interim, in the short term, I'm thoroughly in favor of the most rigorous policing and intelligence response to try and stop these dastardly acts from happening, but the only way we can really be clear of them, the only way we can be safe from them, is if we reduce the number of people out there who are ready to support those who are ready to hurt us. The fish has to swim in water, and bin Laden is swimming in this water, in this swamp that we have created... We have to be tough on terrorism, and tough on the causes of terrorism."

Someone called Lee on I Love Everything echoed many of the tabloids in his outrage at Galloway's comments. "What the hell is this idiot Galloway doing ventriloquising the bombers? Blood still fresh on the streets, and he's spewing his mouth. And he calls his party "Respect". Ironic? Nauseating?" My friend Ed, who marched against the Iraq war, agreed: "The next bishop or George Galloway I meet is likely to get a kicking!" Someone called Porkpie added to the virtual lynching: "I would also like 5 minutes in a room with Mr Galloway."

Personally, I don't really see why people want "five minutes in a room" with Galloway or accuse him of lack of respect, especially if they marched against the Iraq war. Wasn't one of the reasons we marched that we didn't want to be used as human collateral in a war? That we knew that violence would just breed more violence? Isn't that what Galloway is saying too? The Iraq War was a terrible mistake, based on a false premise about weapons of mass destruction which we now know didn't exist. Tony Blair has paid, on our behalf, a threefold price for it. He lost seats, he lost soldiers, and now he's losing civilians. Five minutes in a room with Tony Blair is what we should really be thirsting for, those of us who still have any bloodlust whatsoever.

While I understand distaste at the "demagogues and polemicists and religionists who would claim this tragedy as their own", the problem is that to claim 7/7 as a neutral tragedy, a random event, a force of nature or something bizarre and insane, is equally irresponsible. 7/7 has a political dimension and must be discussed politically at some point. Tact and timing should play a part, of course. But the political conclusions should not be postponed indefinitely, nor should tact forbid us to make the obvious connections with policy.

I'm really sick of this line that "there's no logic whatsoever, it's all random, they hate life for no reason, they work without political motivation"... An Islamist terrorist attack on London may have been possible before 9/11 and likely after it, but it became significantly more likely after British involvement in the pre-emptive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We know that security has been ramped up since the Iraq war. From a purely practical point of view, the authorities have certainly considered that the Iraq war made this kind of event significantly more likely, and we expect exactly that sort of realism from them. I'm curious to see commentators failing to admit what we'd condemn security planners for failing to admit. We wouldn't want a police investigation to assume that the bombers were madmen without any motive or any political affiliations, would we? That investigation would surely fail, because it would be quite incapable of relating any fact to any other, of establishing links, motives or money trails. So why do we allow commentators to utter such inanities?

Comments

[ohnefuehlen.livejournal.com]

It's not even factually accurate. Bin Laden has a clear political goal, about which he has been very explicit: the restoration of the Dar al-Islam, an Islamic empire stretching from Morocco to Indonesia. He's not just blowing people up because it's fun.

I marched against the Iraq war. I thought it was a stupid, badly thought-out solution to the problem of Saddam Hussein. But now that we've done it, I don't think it would be right for us just to pull out immediately - that would do a further disservice to the Iraqi people, whom we've greatly if inadvertently wrong. Of course I want us out as soon as is feasible, but right now we're needed, our troops especially given their expertise in peacekeeping.

Bin Laden's Goal Is Not A Rare Idea

[cerulicante.livejournal.com]

I believe this is correct. Al-Qaeda's goal is to force the world into a state of Dar-al-Islam, under total and strict Sharia law, with those outside either converted or killed. There are NO exceptions. NONE. Non-Muslims will either be killed outright or forced to live in a state of reduced rights and no legal recourses. If you are gay, or a woman who enjoys talking to non-male relatives, then you will be killed if Al-Qaeda and those who think like them get their way.


There are no concessions, no delays and no negotiations possible. Their goal is Dar-al-Islam or Death...Just because you're the last to be killed doesn't make you any safer. Doing what we're doing in Iraq might be unpalatable, but showing those people that a democracy where women aren't stoned to death for ACCUSATIONS of adultery is a pretty nice alternative, even if Momus whines about it.

[fufurasu.livejournal.com]

Yes, thank you. And in a similar vein: "Removing the Causes (http://fufurasu.org/archives/000266.html)."

[mcgazz.livejournal.com]

Galloway-bashing seems to be very popular among apolitical middle class frustrated that the war has isolated them from the Blair government, who they'd previously actually quite liked.

Tony Benn said pretty much exactly what Galloway said, shortly afterwards, and I don't see anyone proudly boasting about their desire to give him a doing.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

To end terror, we must end occupation in the Islamic world (http://www.sundayherald.com/50710) by Tariq Ali.

[artysmokes.livejournal.com]

Pre-fucking-cisely. I'm totally with Galloway on this issue. I've been saying to anyone who'll listen (and many that won't) that Blair made British people a "legitimate" target for extremists ever since his lamentable "Shoulder to shoulder with America" speech after 911.

What I am about to say is really controversial, but I wish the (inevitable) terrorist outrage in London had arrived earlier, while the Iraq war was in full swing. If it had, Blair's premiership would have been under immense pressure, and we could have seen an election result as uplifting as that of Spain.

The timing of the terrorist attack and the G8 summit has allowed Bush and Blair to come together again in the (unwinnable) 'War on Terror'. Bush was practically revelling in the attack. Many Americans have been making a bigger fuss about it than British people. British people want to ignore the outrage. The majority want no part in Bush's ridiculous war.

[qscrisp.livejournal.com]

I'd just like to state that, as someone living in London and using the public transport regularly, I'm quite aware that I could have been one of those killed or injured in the attack, but I still don't understand why people think linking the attack to the Iraq war is disrespectful.

If anything, I would hope it makes us feel closer to those being needlesly slaughtered in Iraq at the moment.

So, thank you for this post. Well said.

thoroughly unhelpful

[alionunderaw.livejournal.com]

I think this is in large measure because people don't want to admit that they have some kind of role in such an event. I used to know someone who hectored me by saying, "every war takes away our humanity less and less," and that misses the point: it's completely human to wage war on each other. But to consider that these bombing might be a reaction to something (in such a time) will make people appear on a psychological level with the attacker. If one's country did something that was perceived as a threat, and the threatened party struck back, doesn't that force one to share an essential similarity? People either won't want to hear that, or they'll consider it "inappropriate at a time of mourning," even though it's a course that pretty much has to be followed if anybody expects anything to get solved.

the 9/11 narrative in the US was sort of...postlapsarian(!) It had something to do with our national innocence getting taken away; "the bad people came into our house." the innocence part is correct, but only inasfar as kids, say, don't realize that their actions have a bearing in the world, and it was apparently necessary for something so drastic to point it out.

Re: thoroughly unhelpful

[gillen.livejournal.com]

More in the sense of children who don't want to admit to themselves that their parents are criminals. The reaction of Americans to their government is much like a battered child or spouse still living in denial.

[(Anonymous)]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1525357,00.html

[cap-scaleman.livejournal.com]

Ooops, forgot to logg in before I posted the link above.

[becki1111.livejournal.com]

In regard to your criticism of Yahia Said's commentary, I don't think he was saying we shouldn't be asking questions. I think he was saying it is essential to make a choice as to the target of our questions. Obviously, the West needs to question itself about its foreign policy in the Middle East, it needs to ask civilians in the Middle East what can be done. I think the distinction Said makes is dead-on. Our dialogue must be with ourselves and with the innocent. Creating a dialogue with terrorists does give them power and adds legitimacy to their actions. But, ultimately, murder is murder, and while I certainly think there were reasons and goals behind all the terrorist attacks we've seen, I think an analysis of the historical events leading up to present times will provide the answers in the way of motives without directly responding to the terrorists. Communication with the Muslim community at large, and encouraging their presence rather than treating them as the other in this war would be a significant first step. Rewriting the text books another. Pulling troops out but providing funding and security through an organization like the UN another.

I always seem to come back to this thought: the borders of the middle east were deliberately drawn by westerns to dilute the power of any specific tribe. They are artificial and do not reflect the more natural borders that would be suggested by demographics or cultural differences. The construction of these borders was either exceptionally naive or exceptionally cruel. In the former, it is ridiculous to think that stamping a Western-made border on a land with a longer history than the US and UK combined could be anything but ineffectual, arrogant, and a point of tension. The latter suggests that perhaps we wanted this constant state of border wars and regional instability, we designed it to always have our hand (read: military) available to step in and "fix things". This is a sinister view that proposes and absolute disregard for the value of human life on the part of the West, yet one gets suspicious when they see the US signing another contract with Haliburton for $5 billion for continued service in Iraq.

Your last paragraph brings to the forefront double-standard that makes me so suspicious of US motives.

There must be some way to hold our journalists and commentators responsible, but letters, phone calls, petitions and emails seem to have had no effect on the quality (or rather, lack thereof) of reporting.

Thoroughly dejected, I sign off now.

[arpad.livejournal.com]

Personally I am tired of endless discussions of "what the West could do better". "West" is not equal to "God". Let West be selfish. Let West be stupid. And let those who lag behind take a little responsibility.

If we look at Japan or China or India we will see the same history of Western influence with lots of enforcing, atrocities and honest mistakes with awful consequences. But no one will tell you "China was abused at Opium wars and now we should understand...". No - they will tell you about "Human rights abuse in China". Because we treat China as an equal.

IMHO Western "understanding" is far worse than Western atrocities. Because this "understanding" really means "You can NEVER be an equal".

[kineticfactory.livejournal.com]

George Galloway is an asshat. He is one of those neo-Stalinist Marxists (and he has professed his admiration for Stalin) who so despises liberalism and reformism that he considers anything, even Wahhabi Islamism, to be morally superior. (His Respect Party actually angled for the Islamist vote, and has a lot of candidates who are not progressives but rather religious fundamentalists.)

Yes, gays would be stoned to death and women reduced to chattels, but at least we wouldn't be under the heel of Zionist-Crusader-Capitalist Imperialism.

[cap-scaleman.livejournal.com]

What's your point?

[spoombung.livejournal.com]

As someone who marched against the war with 2 million other people in London ( and who voted LibDem instead of the Labour because of the war) my natural inclination is to agree with the thrust of your argument - that there is a political dimension to these attacks that is being conveniently ignored.

However, based on what we know about the 9/11 bombers and the Bali bombers there is a very strong element of weird sexual repression and social alienation that suggests there is a psychopathic motivation involved- irrespective of a political motivation.

Think for a minute if the America had not gone to war in Afganhistan and Iraq and instead had examined the bombers pychological profiles under a public spotlight when it had the sympathy of most of the world (directly after the attacks).It could have taken great care to explain to all and sundry that they were not true Muslims but social misfits first and foremost and their non-sensecal religious and politcal rantings where ultimately a smokescreen for their own pyschopathology. The old political rangles involving land and Palestine could have been tackled separately.

That might have had more effect than any army. Just a suggestion.

[boof-boy.livejournal.com]

But don't you think there's an "element of weird sexual repression and social alienation" in George Bush too?

[badspelling.livejournal.com]

I simply cannot understand why anyone would call George Galloway an asshat. He may be a political animal (with all the bad that comes with it) but he's one of the few people talking sense right now. Let's stop fucking around and let's address the real causes.

We are reaping what we sow here. the terrorists do not exist in a vaccuum free from political motivation. It's blindly obvious what they want.

Capitulation is not what anyone of these so-called left wing commentators are advocating, Galloway included. And no one is sympathesing or alligning themsleves with the terrorists. But we simply cannot go forward and be safe unless we treat muslim countries and their with the respect that we ourselves expect to to be treated.

The frustrating thing about this whole mess is that the solution is so bloody clear. It might be a hard decision to make, especially for the rich and powerful, but that's exactly the point. It's only the rich and powerful who benefit from this battle to control the middle east. it's true our standing in the world may diminish, economic prices may have to be paid, our standard of living may fall as a result. we might not be able to keep living in such a wasteful and greedy way. but I for one am ready to pay this price, because i don't think it'll be that different from how it is for the majority of average earning people right now.

Also, why have we so quickly forgotten the example of the Irish Conflict? It's the recent past, a similar situation surely, yet very little is talked about it. Didn't we make great gains in resolving this conflict not ten years ago? And how did we do it?

Did we use violence? Or did we take a deep gulp and start talking? While I know the situation is different, and I'm not saying we should open talks with these terrorists. We should at least remember the example of a peaceful and concessionary resolution. It bloody worked didn't it? Why the fuck have we forgotten.

[badspelling.livejournal.com]

sorry for all the typos. I got heated.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

It may be that I hold our society to much too high a standard. But as a general rule I'd say that:

• Our society is only as civilised as its treatment of those it considers "barbaric".
• Our society is only as advanced as its record towards the "backward".
• Our society is only as tolerant as its tolerance of what it considers "intolerable".
• Our society is only as understanding as its understanding of what's "beyond the pale".
• Our society is only as permissive as its ability to permit the "impermissible".
• Our society should only be considered as "rich" as its poorest member.

[(Anonymous)]

And THEIR society is only as civilised as its treatment of those it ... etc

[(Anonymous)]

http://glitchslaptko.blogspot.com/2005/07/terrorbird.html

[(Anonymous)]

"So why do we allow commentators to utter such inanities?"

Don't we do exactly the same thing when we ask the doctor why we have symptoms X, Y and Z and are happy to accept the inanities of "virus", "genes", "no reason"? Thankfully, though, our own personal health is an area in which we have a certain amount of power to act on our incredulity.

[godfreygoode.livejournal.com]

Clearly there is value in understanding where your enemies are coming from. The American conservatives' hubris in failing to plan for a post-invasion insurgency in Iraq has turned into a considerable political folly.

However, I think Said is trying to warn against the kind of relativistic thinking that is so pervasive lately--"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." In other words, we cannot afford to see the terrorists' line of thought as justified or meaningful. Many people want to give the squeaky wheel the grease by pulling everyone out of Iraq and the mideast at large.

However cynical you might be about capitalism or democracy, it is clear that you cannot have political freedom without economic freedom. When a government or dictator controls everything from the place you work at to your media outlets, you cannot afford to freely express your views or your lifestyle. While the invasion of Iraq was ill-planned, there is nothing ignoble about trying to bestow a region of the world with the freedoms that we in the West enjoy.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

there is nothing ignoble about trying to bestow a region of the world with the freedoms that we in the West enjoy

I wonder how we'd feel about them if someone had dropped them on us from 30,000 feet?

[transient-poet.livejournal.com]

There is an International Relations theorist, who I have not read for at least eight years by the name of Lipschitz who argues that the very quest for "security" make for an insecure world. His argument is based around the rhetoric of security, that in the very act of defining the secure and insecure you create a self and other thus reducing one's capacity to clearly perceive external threats. Of course one could argue that this really goes back to the very concept of the state or back further to gender and identity. To paraphrase Grant Morrison, "You is just everything not included in the concept of me."

[scottmorrison.livejournal.com]

Please stop calling it 7/7. It was a bombing, Britain has had lots of them before and we'll undoubtedly have more in the future.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Isn't that precisely why it needs a number? If it was the only bombing Britain had ever had we could just call it "the bombing".

[(Anonymous)]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html

The following text is the second fatwa originally published on February 23, 1998, to declare a holy war, or jihad, against the West and Israel:

"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God."

1998!
Before Bush, Before Iraq, Before Afghanistan.

You have the logic, political goal and the ways to achieve it right there.

And the Obsevber has some other pieces you might want to read

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1525172,00.html

[imomus.livejournal.com]

I've already read Cohen's piece. I find it alarmingly keen to condone military intervention. The thrust of his reasoning is "Why attack our own leaders when we can attack the much worse leaders of other countries?" And he seems quite happy to endorse pre-emptive invasion of powers we don't like:

'Hang your head in shame, Mr Blair. Better still, resign - and whoever takes over immediately withdraw all our forces from Iraq and Afghanistan,' wrote the Rev Mike Ketley, who is a vicar, for God's sake, but has no qualms about leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban and al-Qaeda or Iraq to the Baath party and al-Qaeda.

Qualms are exactly what we need here. Qualms about military intervention, and bringing "freedom" on the pointy tip of a missile. "Stop your liberal whingeing and let's invade!" is hardly a constructive message at this point. Has Mr Cohen looked at Iraq recently?

Who cares?

[(Anonymous)]

70 people. Thats the same amount that die in traffic accidents every week in the UK. No disrespect to the people who died, but the best way to deal with it IS to ignore it. The hysteria is very tedious.

Re: Who cares?

[artysmokes.livejournal.com]

I've made this point elsewhere.

One can only ignore it if one avoids all media for a few weeks. It was only a week ago that we were being told by newscasters that an African child dies of hunger every three seconds. One of the tragedies of the terrorist outrage is that the 23,000 African kids who died in poverty yesterday got zero media coverage. Whilst the loss of life in London was awful, the business being done at Gleneagles (which may save the lives of TEN MILLION PEOPLE) is far more important.

Why Galloway Is Wrong

[(Anonymous)]

Back during WWII, the UK had to know that it's military opposition to Germany would lead to violent reprisals--and it did, in the Blitz, which cost countless lives. Nobody then argued, "Shucks, if we just hadn't fought back against the Nazis, they wouldn't have bombed us," as a rationale for surrendering to WWII (note: see France as a counterexample).

What Galloway said was true: fighting back against terrorists does, *in the short run*, make you a more likely of those terrorists. But using that as an excuse to cut and run is what's so f*cking disgusting. Why?

Because first the terrorists will ask you to pull out of Iraq. Then out of Afghanistan. Then they'll want all of Arabia under control (will those of you feminists like to see millions [more] women unable to drive, beaten at will, etc.?). Then they'll want Moorish Spain back (think this is outlandish? try reading some AlQaeda tracts).

The ultimate goal of these extremist islamic terrorists is not too far from that of the Nazis: elimination of all the impure, in this case, the non-believers.

So sure, p*ssies like Galloway can say, "let's give in here so we don't get hit more." Maybe some ways down the road, he'll regret this.

PS - The other reason Galloway's statement is so disgusting is that it's so f*cking yellow. I mean, even if you believe that sh*t, show some b*lls once in a while!

Re: Why Galloway Is Wrong

[badspelling.livejournal.com]

this is the thing you see, all the critics get this confused. but here it is once again just so idiots like you will understand. righting wrongs in the middle east does not mean handing over power to the extremists. it simply means handing over decisions to normal moderate people. the conditions for this extremism would then no longer exist. so simple.

as for showing balls, (i hate to do this but I'm gonna...) I live in Bloomsbury. I work in Russell Square. Kings Cross and Russell Square are my local tube stations--I use them everyday. showing balls? being yellow? what do you know?

Shopping list of morning dew...

[meganfinley.livejournal.com]

1) When I heard of London, I knew it would show up here, I'm surprised it wasn't yesterday.
2) Did Nostrodamus not predict a third world war and so forth?
3) Yes, America is Americentric and lacks the 'cultural continuity' of organically formed indigeonous conglomerations and locales. We are a synthetically created culture and exist on our own contrived folklore.
4) I dated a snail once, does that make me an expert on snails?
5) This is the reverse of the crusades, when the Christian West decided that those savages were washing themselves and praying five times a day and being tolerant of the preexisting cultural beliefs of regions they conquered. How dare they!
6) Since its inception the number one fear is nuclear apocalypse globally. Do we really have more of a reason to be scared now than we did at anytime between Oppenheimer and the H-bomb and now, just because there are different players doesn't mean the game has changed. ("How about a nice game of chess?"- War Games)
7) More soldiers away from home means no soldiers at home, ever feel like you're getting set up to take a fall?
8) Why is it getting the limited/slanted/lame press coverage that it is? Look who owns the mainstream media and runs it. I might love the Daily Show but that doesn't mean they've got their act together to pose any constructive solutions. Media is big business.

Re: Shopping list for disaster continued

[meganfinley.livejournal.com]

) It's not just our foreign policy that is neglected, we have plenty of infighting too in the US to keep everyone distracted.
10) I am just going to say it: The election was rigged people. Electronic voting machines are a scam, and if someone doesn't get their act together our next monarch, er um, president is going to be Jeb Bush or worse,Rummy.
11) Democracy: where did it say this word equates to a bi-partisan system?
12) The last time we took over a country and gave them a 'make-over' they ended up with a newer, stronger constituion than our own which actually has an ammendment providing for women's rights (which the US' doesn't by the way) and saying they couldn't have a military anymore so they put all of their money into business and innovation- you might have heard of them: Japan.
13) We have a US ammendment saying women can vote, but that's it. In some states you need a man to purchase property for you technically. Oh, and pharmacists have decided to stop handing over the birth control pill, it's easier than doing those abortion bombings.
14) Women haven't been encouraged very much in the pursuit of independance in Western culture either, just because we can show our faces doesn't mean we don't get the kids to raise and the bills that go with them.
15) Feminism has turned into an equality thing, an 'I can do anything you can do thing nanana!' well that misses the point- can't feminenity be its own thing- equal but different?
16) Guess what! The Middle East has a culture and a history, Beirut was known as the Paris of the Middle East prior to all of this crap. Remember Persia? The ones with the rugs, the Perfumed Garden, the shishkabobs of lamb? Remember algebra? alchemy? all those other 'a' words- I'll tell you a secret- all of these are from Iraq, Iran, Afganistan and the surrounding areas. Yes they had beauty and art and culture and architecture! Wow! Before it got bombed to bits- don't blame it all on their own infighting either- these things have escalated steadily to now.
17) People crave black and white with a little tolerance of the grey- it is not as simple as that. There is never a good or a bad, there is evil, there is also miscommunication, suspicion, and manipulation for private gain. There can be no seperation of innocent from guilty- there are only those pushed passed the point of desparation.
18) Think of the Looney Tunes they censor now: the 'dirty japs', the 'step and fetch it' how do we think about these portrayels today? Now transport yourself to sixty years in the future,if everything goes according to plan, how will we see our perception of these 'psychopaths and death-mongers?' add your stereotype here.
19) What about Africa hmm? They have a Muslim population, so does Asia actually. How does the US and the 15 Polish troops and everyone else look to them?
20) We published a picture of our public enemy #1 in his tidy (saggy) whiteys on the front page of major periodicals in the US. two months earlier we were realing from abuse of prisoners in prisoner of war facities. Do we never learn to stop humiliation: it makes the humiliator look worse than the victim every time.
21) I protested the Persian Gulf 'conflict'. I got shot by a paint ball gun to the back of my jacket. It made the sound of a real gun and I felt impact. No one wanted to put a stop to that skirmish either.
22) Enough with the Jewish world conspiracy stuff- that is so 1890's!
23) Leave! Leave now! Get a clue- we can't boost the economy by having a war every generation in the US, it just doesn't work anymore.
24) If there is a draft let the sons of the major Republicans get drafted first.
25) "An ambassador (politician) is someone who is paid to lie for their country."

Shopping list for disaster continued

[meganfinley.livejournal.com]

) It's not just our foreign policy that is neglected, we have plenty of infighting too in the US to keep everyone distracted.
10) I am just going to say it: The election was rigged people. Electronic voting machines are a scam, and if someone doesn't get their act together our next monarch, er um, president is going to be Jeb Bush or worse,Rummy.
11) Democracy: where did it say this word equates to a bi-partisan system?
12) The last time we took over a country and gave them a 'make-over' they ended up with a newer, stronger constituion than our own which actually has an ammendment providing for women's rights (which the US' doesn't by the way) and saying they couldn't have a military anymore so they put all of their money into business and innovation- you might have heard of them: Japan.
13) We have a US ammendment saying women can vote, but that's it. In some states you need a man to purchase property for you technically. Oh, and pharmacists have decided to stop handing over the birth control pill, it's easier than doing those abortion bombings.
14) Women haven't been encouraged very much in the pursuit of independance in Western culture either, just because we can show our faces doesn't mean we don't get the kids to raise and the bills that go with them.
15) Feminism has turned into an equality thing, an 'I can do anything you can do thing nanana!' well that misses the point- can't feminenity be its own thing- equal but different?
16) Guess what! The Middle East has a culture and a history, Beirut was known as the Paris of the Middle East prior to all of this crap. Remember Persia? The ones with the rugs, the Perfumed Garden, the shishkabobs of lamb? Remember algebra? alchemy? all those other 'a' words- I'll tell you a secret- all of these are from Iraq, Iran, Afganistan and the surrounding areas. Yes they had beauty and art and culture and architecture! Wow! Before it got bombed to bits- don't blame it all on their own infighting either- these things have escalated steadily to now.
17) People crave black and white with a little tolerance of the grey- it is not as simple as that. There is never a good or a bad, there is evil, there is also miscommunication, suspicion, and manipulation for private gain. There can be no seperation of innocent from guilty- there are only those pushed passed the point of desparation.
18) Think of the Looney Tunes they censor now: the 'dirty japs', the 'step and fetch it' how do we think about these portrayels today? Now transport yourself to sixty years in the future,if everything goes according to plan, how will we see our perception of these 'psychopaths and death-mongers?' add your stereotype here.
19) What about Africa hmm? They have a Muslim population, so does Asia actually. How does the US and the 15 Polish troops and everyone else look to them?
20) We published a picture of our public enemy #1 in his tidy (saggy) whiteys on the front page of major periodicals in the US. two months earlier we were realing from abuse of prisoners in prisoner of war facities. Do we never learn to stop humiliation: it makes the humiliator look worse than the victim every time.
21) I protested the Persian Gulf 'conflict'. I got shot by a paint ball gun to the back of my jacket. It made the sound of a real gun and I felt impact. No one wanted to put a stop to that skirmish either.
22) Enough with the Jewish world conspiracy stuff- that is so 1890's!
23) Leave! Leave now! Get a clue- we can't boost the economy by having a war every generation in the US, it just doesn't work anymore.
24) If there is a draft let the sons of the major Republicans get drafted first.
25) "An ambassador (politician) is someone who is paid to lie for their country."

Re: Shopping list for disaster continued

[godfreygoode.livejournal.com]

11) Democracy: where did it say this word equates to a bi-partisan system?

Given the wide range of beliefs that can be held by two persons in the same political party (joe liberman and john kerry, barry goldwater and nelson rockefeller), it's clear that the system has been sufficient in representing all the viewpoints that are reasonable in a democratic capitalist society. You may think that socialism, for example, as a political force is under-represented, but you cannot have democracy (freedom of speech, press, etc) when the place you work at is controlled by the government.

.17) People crave black and white with a little tolerance of the grey- it is not as simple as that. There is never a good or a bad, there is evil, there is also miscommunication, suspicion, and manipulation for private gain. There can be no seperation of innocent from guilty- there are only those pushed passed the point of desparation.

I'm all for the consideration and study of nihilism in a philosophical context, however, let's not completely ignore reality: if there's no clear right or wrong then Hitler would still be firing up the kilns to this day.

24) If there is a draft let the sons of the major Republicans get drafted first.

Actually, conservatives are the first people against the draft because it's unconstitutional. Your fears are unfounded

Cannon fodder - nothing new

[(Anonymous)]

Longtime Momus fan here.

I think that my Seán MacCann, over on clickonsean.org, has it right:

"The British Empire came to power on the back of killing its own plebs through expansionist wars; if these hate-filled cowards think that they'll cow the British elite by doing the same; well, it shows you how far up their arses their heads really are."

http://clickonseandotorg.blogspot.com/2005/07/heart-of-london.html