News & views …
Back to Main
February 12, 2005
Open Thread 05-17
Comments
wow another OT, almost morning here i am still awake and unable to read or care at the moment what i’ll read at another time and wonder why i couldn’t get it together enough to ponder. actually sober and peaking out from under myself and really missing bob marley,major lingo,and by best friend in the third grade.yeah! okay falling down shitfaced and wondering if i’m just not fucking spirtual enough.have i lost faith or can i not find a faith i can get strength from.this is the only blog i feel confortable posting and i always wait till the wee hours.i’ll be back in the shadows tomarrow.sorry if anyone is,no i’m not just skip me.
Posted by: onzaga | Feb 12 2005 11:55 utc | 1
I am double posting, as I didn’t see that this new open thread was available.
Iranian voices: No War on Iran!
And a Iranian picture comment: Purple Finger
Posted by: Fran | Feb 12 2005 11:58 utc | 2
Frank Rich, nice reading, no better ridicules reading, well what ever – it is worth reading: How Dirty Harry Turned Commie
Posted by: Fran | Feb 12 2005 15:26 utc | 3
Maybe everybody should read this Ex-Detainee Says He Was Tortured
There will be a US/Israelei air attack on Iran this year. They are just waiting for an incident to justify this.
WaPo page A1: U.S. Uses Drones to Probe Iran For Arms
Surveillance Flights Are Sent From Iraq
The Bush administration has been flying surveillance drones over Iran for nearly a year to seek evidence of nuclear weapons programs and detect weaknesses in air defenses, according to three U.S. officials with detailed knowledge of the secret effort.
The small, pilotless planes, penetrating Iranian airspace from U.S. military facilities in Iraq, use radar, video, still photography and air filters designed to pick up traces of nuclear activity to gather information that is not accessible by satellites, the officials said. The aerial espionage is standard in military preparations for an eventual air attack and is also employed as a tool for intimidation
…
The surveillance has been conducted as the Bush administration sharpens its anti-Iran rhetoric and the U.S. intelligence community searches for information to support President Bush’s assertion that Tehran is trying to build nuclear weapons.
The Washington Post reported Saturday that the intelligence community is conducting a broad review of its Iran assessments, including a new look at information about the country’s nuclear program, according to administration officials and congressional sources. A similar review, called a National Intelligence Estimate, formed an important part of the administration’s case for war against Iraq.
Just came across the Link to Sistani’s website on Buzzflash: here
Posted by: Fran | Feb 13 2005 11:37 utc | 7
Three U-S soldiers killed after vehicle rolls over
BAGHDAD, Iraq Three U-S soldiers died in Iraq when their vehicle rolled into a canal.
The accident occurred during a patrol today in the town of Balad (BEHL’-ihd), about 50 miles north of Baghdad.
Five soldiers attempting to rescue the men were evacuated for medical treatment, but were all expected to return to duty.
The U-S military says the accident is under investigation.
Rolled into a canal – five wounded during rescue operation?
According to the I-Casualties numbers which are taken from official sources, so far this month 12 GIs got killed through hostile action, 8 through non-hostile action. In January 74 hostile 53 non-hostile. the months before that the non-hostile made up some 10-20% of dead. Now its up to 30-40% – do I smell some fishy statistics here?
Just as believable as the Iraqi election numbers.
Comrades: It is Time for the Horst Wesel’s of the Left to Crush the Zionist/fascist New Republic(an) Galeiters Under Our Boots, holed Up As They Are Now in the Bunker of Their Own Creation
Seriously, folks, it’s a good cause. Read the link. Let’s purify the Left.
There’s an EMail address you can use and everything.
Remember the Glorious February Revolution and the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. May Day’s a few months off.
Let’s have some fun today!
Posted by: Horst Wesel | Feb 14 2005 17:31 utc | 10
that name was Horst Wessel btw – and I still can not reach smirking chimp
—
Propagannon – Jeff Gannon aka Jim Guckert was obviously a professional male prostitute. His problem, yes, but as a GOP reporter with White House Access?
Americablog has the story.
To head off this threat of a Shi’ite clergy-driven religious movement, the US has, according to Asia Times Online investigations, resolved to arm small militias backed by US troops and entrenched in the population to “nip the evil in the bud”.
Asia Times Online has learned that in a highly clandestine operation, the US has procured Pakistan-manufactured weapons, including rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, ammunition, rockets and other light weaponry. Consignments have been loaded in bulk onto US military cargo aircraft at Chaklala airbase in the past few weeks. The aircraft arrived from and departed for Iraq.
The US-armed and supported militias in the south will comprise former members of the Ba’ath Party, which has already split into three factions, only one of which is pro-Saddam Hussein. They would be expected to receive assistance from pro-US interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi’s Iraqi National Accord.
A military analyst familiar with strategic and proxy operations commented that there is a specific reason behind procuring arms from Pakistan, rather than acquiring US-made ones.
“A similar strategy was adopted in Afghanistan during the initial few years of the anti-USSR resistance [the early 1980s] movement where guerrillas were supplied with Chinese-made AK-47 rifles [which were procured by Pakistan with US money], Egyptian and German-made G-3 rifles. Similarly, other arms, like anti-aircraft guns, short-range missiles and mortars, were also procured by the US from different countries and supplied to Pakistan, which handed them over to the guerrillas,” the analyst maintained.
The obvious reason for this tactic is to give the impression that the resistance acquired its arms and ammunition from different channels and from different countries – and anywhere other than the United States….
Posted by: DM | Feb 14 2005 19:32 utc | 12
DM is quoting from a story in the asia times
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GB15Ak02.html
Posted by: mistah charley | Feb 14 2005 19:46 utc | 13
I am a citizen of Paraquay, B.
My name is spelled a bit differently here–I have reasons.
More Here on the Traitorous Pond-Scum Vipers that Infest and Corrupt the Body Politic
Posted by: Horst Wesel | Feb 14 2005 19:53 utc | 14
Bernhard, Here is a link to the story at Smirking Chimp.
Posted by: beq | Feb 14 2005 22:20 utc | 17
“Khomeiny”?
My God, the Chinese must have taken over Iran while we weren’t watching too close.
DOWN! SIT!
That’s a good dog, Wolfie.
Posted by: Groucho | Feb 14 2005 22:57 utc | 19
Bin Laden Does Not Have a Chance. He Will Ultimately Be Brought to Justice
Posted by: Groucho | Feb 14 2005 23:21 utc | 20
I Wonder Whether the Sentences Will Run Concurrently or Consecutively
Posted by: Groucho | Feb 15 2005 0:58 utc | 21
I find Bob Jensen’s take on Ward Churchill to be reasonable and constructive.
@DeA:
Bob Jensen is a good writer-thoughtful and deliberate. I agree with much that HE has to say.
Posted by: FlashHarry | Feb 15 2005 2:31 utc | 23
okay, we’ve currently got another round of dialogue going on in the u.s. over the naive question ‘why would anyone hate us enough to kill us’ & what did the attacks on the wtc and pentagon accomplish. very important. very important that we collectively acknowledge this opportunity & make sure that the questions & analyses stay focused. personally, i think jensen & others have over-emphasized what was an obvious and openly admitted rough-draft for ward. granted, any discussion of this topic-we-shall-not-speak-of has some benefits & the more perspectives that get out there, the more likely it is to command attention & generate introspection. still, i’d like to see their analyses & responses break new ground & touch on some seriously-related issues that have not been acknowledged. one thing that has struck me is that nobody in any of these criticisms/defenses/articles veers away from the official explanation for the attacks of sept 11. every damn article works from the unaddressed notion that AQ is solely responsible. has this been substantiated beyond doubt? don’t think so. it’s still an open question, best i can gather. maybe mike ruppert should write a provocative polemic calling dick cheney some loaded names so we can start that discussion while he’s still around.
Posted by: b real | Feb 15 2005 4:26 utc | 24
Saw the Frontline piece on Saudi Arabia last night, which makes very clear that from FDR on the US has been intimately involved in that country for its own “interests”. This relationship has always been rife with contradiction, be it SA’s anti Christian stance or its state of perpetual (technically to this day) war with Israel, the fact that the king was presented, with at one time, US military plans to occupy the oil producing region, if need be, shows the bottom line interests of the US (oil) are to trump all other considerations, especially those cultural forces (whahhabi) that the Saudis were forced in some ways to placate because of the US presence on their soil. Coupled with this growing resentment the US, on the USSR / Afgan front, arms this militancy, apparantly clueless to the fact that what they really desired was the expulsion of ALL outside influence, including the US. 911 then is at the least, a direct by-product, if not the creation, of the last 50 years of US / Saudi policy — that has now been magnified from Saudi arm twisting to twisting the arm of all of Islam.
In the short view, the Churchill affair is about the simple acknowledgment of cause and effect, that someone is pushing BACK, and that it is a reaction to that which the US has chosen to ignore.
The long view is that we to are being pushed, and here too, the chickens will return to roost.
Posted by: anna missed | Feb 15 2005 6:19 utc | 25
US fights back against ‘rule by clerics’
To head off this threat of a Shi’ite clergy-driven religious movement, the US has, according to Asia Times Online investigations, resolved to arm small militias backed by US troops and entrenched in the population to “nip the evil in the bud”.
In other words, the US Government will kick off a civil war rather than allow the people who won the elections to rule.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 15 2005 12:07 utc | 26
Opps, sorry DM, shoulda looked first before posting… none the less, now this is investigative reporting heh? they still do that in some countries.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 15 2005 12:23 utc | 27
But, they’re trying to do this to a country where the population has been primed for this sort of crap from the US, together with leaderships who know it’s coming and a variety of hostile media outlets in the area. All this is likely to do is increase Iranian influence surely? It’s not as if the Sunnis need the weapons. Aren’t the weapons as likely to be used against US forces as against Shia??
Urk. Faith based geopolitics. Great.
Is it at all clear what the Shia leadership intend? I haven’t seen any real analysis of exactly what they mean by a constitution based on Islam: these aren’t the Taliban and they’re not Wahabbists. What sort of Islamic law does Sistani want in place for instance?
What sort of Islamic law does Sistani want in place for instance?
From what he said so far, he does not want the “Rule of the clerics”, but application of Islamic law in civil life.
For women, this is catastrophic.
For real, nobody knows what he wants and this may only become clear when he approves the members of the commission that will somehow draft a constitution.
Don’t know much about them roostin chickens, but watch out for this:
The Corporate Lapdog
Posted by: FlashHarry | Feb 15 2005 13:56 utc | 31
“Application of Islamic law” in civil life could mean an awful lot of things. When we hear “Shariah” in the west, we think of Saudi Arabia, but as far as I can make out it has roughly the same meaning as calls for US law to reflect Christian values. It could mean anything from full-blown medieval law down to a free democratic society. I suspect it will fall somewhere in the middle.
Some you may like this:
Turks not too happy with the US.
You forget Turkey?
I for one would like to indulge myself in some good ole schadenfreude IRT Jeff Gannon and his handlers. I am thinking about going around to all the Freeper style sites where they defended him for being a Republican and asking them if in light of the fact that little Jeff is a male prostitute, if that is what it means to be a Republican.
Posted by: dan of steele | Feb 15 2005 18:49 utc | 34
@DOS:
Would be fun to do, but you had best wear some armor.
Posted by: FlashHarry | Feb 15 2005 19:45 utc | 35
Churchill update,
Recieved this today from the UofC on a review of Ward Churchill & his writings. Included is a website for updates:
In part the e-mail:
At the Feb. 3 Board of Regents meeting, I announced a course of action
that provides due process. Over the next few weeks, I will oversee a
thorough examination of Professor Churchill’s writings, speeches, tape
recordings and other works. The purpose of this internal review is to
determine whether Professor Churchill overstepped his bounds as a
faculty member, showing cause for dismissal as outlined in the Laws of
the Regents.
At the conclusion of this examination, I will determine whether to
issue a notice of intent to dismiss for cause, other action as
appropriate, or no action. If a notice to dismiss for cause or some
other action is issued then the subsequent process will be governed by
the Laws of the Regents…………….
I encourage you to visit the CU-Boulder News Center Web site at
<http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/> for additional
information and updates on this situation.
Posted by: anna missed | Feb 15 2005 19:52 utc | 36
website:
http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/
Posted by: anna missed | Feb 15 2005 19:56 utc | 37
re the CU board of regents, there’s a “defend ward churchill” flyer download avail at this nyc indymedia page which contains all the contact info for the three 30-day review board members, the univ. president, and the entire board of regents. how only three guys could possibly pull off a “thorough examination of Professor Churchill’s writings, speeches, tape recordings and other works” in only thirty days is beyond me, considering ward’s voluminous output has spanned some 21-plus years now…
Posted by: b real | Feb 15 2005 20:31 utc | 38
every one of us who teaches at this ot that institution of higher learning must do all we can to defend ward churchill. he has sd what many of us have posited here but in less harsher terms
in brief – what he sd – was that it was inevitable that america should suffer for its imperial practices where many millions have died or have been slammed into lives of utter & disgraceful neglect
& what he sd in relationship to the financial workers in the twin towers is technically & conceptually correct. they were & are key mechacnisms in the imperial project. churchill has followed his own logic & understood that he too is technically a ‘little eichmann’ – as is anyone who benefits directly or indirectly from the imperial project. it is after all just a rephrasing of malcolm x’s ‘white skin privelege’
not only free speech is to be defended but the right to rebel is as i understand it fundamental to your constitution. churchill ought to be defended because if he is not you who teach – will be next in line somewhere down the road. he ought to be defended because he is one of the few vocies of america who speak the truth to your ruling class. all his books & his activity in the last twenty years have proved that. he might not be everyone’s idea for an ideologue but there are not so many voices & you need all there are
to silence churchill & to allow the pornographers of hate who pimp & prostitute themselves for rupert murdoch & timewarner is nothing short of contemptible. for real scholars there has never ever been an ivory tower. the people have fed you & by your privilege you speak for the people & you must speak for them even when they do not want to hear it.
you must say unutterale words before you are forced into unuuterable deeds
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 15 2005 22:14 utc | 39
you must say unutterable words before you are forced into unutterable deeds
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 15 2005 22:16 utc | 40
US Accused of Plan to Muzzle Al-Jazeera Through Privatization
by Rupert Cornwell
America and its key ally Saudi Arabia are being accused of quietly seeking to muzzle al-Jazeera, the Arab satellite news station that has often incurred Washington’s ire for its coverage of Iraq and President George Bush’s “war on terror”.
According to reports in the US and the Gulf, the Qatari government, owner of al-Jazeera since its foundation in 1996, has ordered privatization plans for the station to be speeded up. Many al-Jazeera employees fear this could lead to a loss of editorial freedom. A set of proposals is already said to have been presented to al-Jazeera’s board of directors.
US officials reject all charges of meddling. Nonetheless, such suspicions are inevitable. Senior US officials, among them the Vice-President Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary, have fiercely criticized al-Jazeera for what they say is biased and inflammatory reporting.
Washington has been particularly irritated by the station’s coverage of civilian casualties and destruction caused by US troops in Iraq, and by its airing of messages from Osama bin Laden, the al-Qa’ida leader. In Iraq and some other Arab countries, al-Jazeera offices have been shut down.
At the same time the Qatari government’s ownership of the station has strained diplomatic ties between Washington and one of its traditional allies in the Gulf. In what was seen as a sign of US displeasure, the emirate was conspicuously not invited to a summit on Middle East democracy last summer. Though Qatar has pledged to defend the station’s independence (not least as proof of its sincerity in promising greater democracy at home), its diplomats in Washington have reportedly been asked to tone down the station’s coverage.
With a regular audience of between 35 and 50 million, al-Jazeera is the most popular source of news in the Arab world. It is a rare beacon of uninhibited reporting and free expression in a region where strict state control of the media is the norm.
But it has rarely been profitable and relies on an estimated $100m (£53m) annual funding from its government sponsor. Assuming privatization goes ahead, the station is likely to be listed on Qatar’s stock market, where most of its shares would be available only to citizens of member countries of the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC). This could allow Saudi Arabia, the richest GCC member and a prime source of media funding across the region, to gain a major stake in al-Jazeera. The Saudi regime has also been a vigorous critic of al-Jazeera’s coverage of opponents of the regime. It has already suspended advertising on the station – adding to its financial problems.
But the quandary is deepest for Washington. Officials maintain that slanted reporting by the station has contributed to the surge of anti-Americanism across the Arab world. But an attempt to silence this inconvenient voice would run contrary to the proclaimed US intention of fostering free speech and democracy in the region.
© 2005 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 15 2005 22:19 utc | 41
@Coleman – love that Turkey link – Tom Clancy wrote that?
Quite realistic – who could save Turkey from US usurpation? Europe and Russia (which is to a big part European btw)? Long term yes, short term its more difficult, but possible. Very interesting scenario….
and art, made tongue-tied by authority
hahaha.
I can’t keep up.
Posted by: slothrop | Feb 15 2005 22:37 utc | 43
I also read Coleman’s Turkey-link, and I think in a way it shows that the Turks are NOT really Europeans. The buyers of the book and its agenda obviously do not see what a gigantic step it would be for the EU to turn its troops (not that it has enough of them at the moment) against the US army. This would break a connection which, in spite of Bushco and all that, is still there, and very strong. What the EU shares with the US is, historically and constitutionally, much stronger that what it shares with Turkey. If that day of “Europe against the US” ever comes, Western civilization as we thought we knew it will have reached a decisive turning point. You cannot game everything – again, in spite of what Bushco seem to think. Some mind-games should be treated very carefully.
Posted by: teuton | Feb 15 2005 22:56 utc | 44
Turkey: I won’t say it shows they’re really non-Europeans. It shows they’re quite fiercely nationalistic, to a point unseen in Europe since May 1945.
That said, a clash due to Iraq would pit Turkey against the Kurds and possibly the Shia. I don’t know what the US would do, but I can’t see EU backing Turkey in their attempt to carve their own oil province from Iraqi Kurdistan. Other than that, I don’t really see why the US would want to attack Turkey.
But it’s interesting to see that they would begin to look at EU for stability and security – just like “New Europe” has begun last year. Of course, they shouldn’t look at current EU for true security, but then they just noticed they couldn’t count on Washington for that either.
Posted by: Clueless Joe | Feb 16 2005 0:37 utc | 46
Good discussion of Churchill going on here:
LINK
Feel Free to Jump in.
Posted by: First Amendment | Feb 16 2005 1:15 utc | 47
On a recent open thread – I think – someone spoke of relationship between Canada & US. Someone asked what he was smoking. For any Canadians not interested in say a common currency, getting drafted, losing yr. medical care, having yr. companies destroyed, I mean bought out, having a common “security policy”, one foreign policy, sorry guys. Meeting are underway( From 2/14 Toronto Star.)
Posted by: jj | Feb 16 2005 5:44 utc | 48
AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. First, your reaction to the elections that took place in Iraq?
CLARE SHORT: I think everyone should remember it’s Grand Ayatollah Sistani who insisted on elections. The plan, the U.S. plan, and the U.N. plan, was to consult in communities across Iraq, get some representatives to then come together and design a constitution, as the process was in Afghanistan. So, let’s remember that it wasn’t American democracy; it was Grand Ayatollah Sistani democracy. And, of course, what he wanted was to demonstrate was what a big proportion of the population the Shia people were. And he’s achieved that objective, and they voted in big numbers, as did the Kurdish people, because they want to keep their autonomy, and the people in the middle of the country didn’t vote. And therefore, voting is always moving. I remember the first time I voted. I was very moved by it. But it’s divided the country, and all we have got is the proof that the Shia are a big number, and a group that are supposed to draw up a constitution. That is supposed to be then a referendum in October, and then there’s supposed to be a general election in December. So there’s a long way to go. We haven’t got the constitution yet. There’s a danger that the country will be more divided. There’s no evidence that the resistance is being weakened. So, it’s a small thing. It doesn’t solve the problem.
Posted by: Fran | Feb 16 2005 9:26 utc | 49
While Gannongate goes on, well there is still Iraq – Raed has it and I can only say – disgusting! I know I should be used to this by now, but I just can’t and won’t.
New U.S. Scandle, New Dahmer Buffet
The Link Raed gives ist quite graphic, I stopped after 2 pictures, just as a warning.
The new pictures are published on a website being used by American soldiers to post grisly pictures of Iraqi war dead.
The site (http://www.undermars.com/), which has been operating for more than a year, describes itself as “an online archive of soldiers’ photos”. The site is still up until now.
Dozens of pictures of decapitated and limbless bodies are featured on the site with tasteless captions, purportedly sent in by soldiers. The picture above shows the dead bodies of six Iraqi men with a comment reading “damer buffet”. It is indeed a neo-dahmer buffet, bush style.
Other captions include “plastic surgery needed”, “road kill”, an image of a decapitated head of an Iraq man with a comment saying “new meaning to giving head”, an image of a amputated leg of an Iraq person with a comment saying: “I had a body”, another picture of a killed Iraqi man with a comment that reads: “Does this death make me look fat”, another comment read: “I said dead”.
Posted by: Fran | Feb 16 2005 9:46 utc | 50
Oh, the details of that Turkish thing are silly, and the EU and Russia might not have the muscle to do the job, but it’s the mindset required in Turkey that amuses me most. I thought Turkey coming into the EU was going to put a country that could be easily influenced by the US into the EU. Just like Poland. The details aren’t important: I’m sure the Turks know perfectly well it’s not a very realistic scenario at the moment, but it might reflect a popular attitude to the US and to the EU. It certainly helps endear them to me!
And on the other part of the issue: sure it would take a lot for Europe to turn on the US like that, but on the other hand, for how long and how far does a responsible person allow even their family, never mind their friends, commit crimes, especially against other friends and family of theirs. In the sort of scenario suggested, the EU would have an interesting decision to make.
CJ:
Turkey: I won’t say it shows they’re really non-Europeans. It shows they’re quite fiercely nationalistic, to a point unseen in Europe since May 1945.
Um, have you been to Ireland? Or Greece?