We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
I have been of the opinion that Saddam Hussein will say ‘yes’ to the latest UN resolution, based on his opportunity to simply buy time and to exploit the rifts in Western opinion and short-and-shallow attention span of the Western public. I was not surprised by the Iraqi parliament’s ‘defiance’ since Saddam is the top man anyway. But Salam has more to say about it all: Nobody inside Iraq even bothered to tune in to hear what the parliamentarians had to say, while Al-Jazeera thought it was worth live coverage. But the Iraqi government did make it worth while for them. Who would have thought that they would reject the resolution? My money was on the Iraqi Parliament accepting the resolution and Saddam reluctantly giving the OK because that was the “will of his people”. Now I am very interested in the speech he will make to “justify” the acceptance of the UN resolution despite the recommendation of the Iraqi Parliament. (not that he has to justify anything or listen to recommendations, but since the whole thing was public he will make his views known, he likes to give speeches).
I may share Salam’s opinion but I can only imagine what it is like to be there:
As much as I find the resolution unfair, provocative, unrealistic in it’s demands and timeline, vague enough to allow for all sorts of traps I hope saddam does accept the resolution. Only to buy us time. It is a lose-lose situation for the Iraqi people no matter how you look at it. The USA is still talking of regime change, I think Iraq will not go past the first 30 days before the USA shouts “foul”. And in a case of war I do believe that if saddam has any biological or chemical weapons he is very likely to use them on his own people to give the CNN and Jazeera the bloody images everyone doesn’t want to see.
It’s not just a question of whether it is right or wrong to fight war with Saddam. The blogosphere has been throbbing with arguments for and against. On this blog we know which course of action to defend. So far the Big Picture, that we are used to seeing both in current affairs and history, rarely includes the individual (usually he is the one driving it, often by means of oppression and violence). Salam’s lone voice reminds me of millions of human tragedies that do not get played out on the world stage.
The blogosphere may be one way of redressing the balance. Reading Salam’s interpretation of events has had a tremendous impact on my understanding of reality of the war on Iraq. I cannot conceive of such information originating from the traditional media. Not only because I do not have faith in their abilities and motivation, but simply because they have not been designed to fulfil such role. They correspond to the Big Picture view of the world, together with historical analyses, diplomatic discourse and political decisions. The media claims of unbiased reporting and enlightenment through controversy ring hollow as there is a mismatch between their explicit role and understanding of their own limitations.
So Salam’s blog is important, not only in the context of the current international events. For now, I just hope that individual voices will become audible more and more.
For me, the highlight of last weekend’s Libertarian Conference in London was the after-dinner talk delivered by Richard Miniter.
Richard is one of those people who has a resume so chocked full of impressive achievements that it leaves one wondering how he manages to fit it all into one life. As well as being an award-winning business journalist he is also an expert on security matters and will shortly be publishing a book on America’s terror war with Al-Qaeda.
He is currently a Senior Fellow at the Centre for the New Europe.
His presentation was utterly captivating, not just because of the breadth and depth of his knowledge but also due to his style of delivery which makes every person in the room feel as if he is talking to them personally. During the hour that he spoke, I heard not one cough, nor saw one fidget, nor even one yawn stifled.
So fascinating and important were Richard’s insights that they are worth replication here, if only in a précised form. There is no way I can do the presentation full justice, nor replicate it in its entirety. I was far too interested in what was being said to bother with the distracting and unseemly practice of taking notes.
→ Continue reading: Miniter’s World
Putin really laid into the EU and reporters about his handling of Chechnya. He’s certainly got a clear idea of what it is he is fighting.
I’d say Russian and American interests are being driven ever closer together at the same time both are diverging from the EU. This is definitely one of the developing features of the geopolitical landscape to watch closely.
It could well be the defining global political feature of the 21st Century.
Glenn Reynolds pointed out an article in today’s New York Times on the 4th day of student riots in Iran.
What? You haven’t heard? Presumably that’s because the news media thinks we’re more interested in whom is buggering whom in Buckingham than in events of real import? Yes. Of course. That must be it.
The Iranian government has given a sentence of death by hanging to an academic, Hashem Aghajari, for what Americans would call an exercise of his First Amendment rights. If profs in the USA think they are losing those rights simply because someone criticises them, they should consider Iran, where the State can make you lose your head instead of just your temper.
The student protests have spread to other cities and seem likely to continue unless the medieval mullahs stomp on them, an action which would just polarize any remaining fence sitters. The Iranian students are living proof there is a liberal, tolerant 21st Century face to Islam crying out for escape from the rule of fundamentalist fruitcakes.
News media everywhere should be pushing this story with as much alacrity as possible. No reasonable person wants to see blanket hatreds grow. This is precisely what al Qaeda wants. If they have any strategy, it is to bring about the war of civilizations in hopes they can win by expending more lives than we in the civilized world have a stomach for. They are not sufficiently versed in history to understand how terribly mistaken they are or exactly how apocalyptic such a war would be for all… but most especially for them.
We must let the average guy on the street know there are Muslims out there who are just like him or her; people who want to live their lives, worship in their faith, exercise basic liberties… and most importantly, allow others to do the same.
My feelings of hope for Iran are not new. Even in the days immediately following September 11th I told friends Iran is different. There is hope for it. It was never as crazy a place as the rest of the Medieval East; it has an educated populace which understands what a civil society is about. One way or the other they will find their way out of the swamp Khomeini led them into.
I do not think their own government is quite so evil as others in the region. I do not believe Iranians will sacrifice their own children to the past and there is no other path but that of massive and violent repression if they are to block reform.
If I knew an appropriate Muslim phrase (other than Inshallah, which is a bit weak for what I wish them) I would say it for those young Iranians who seek the blessings of Liberty.
I guess “good luck and godspeed” will have to serve.
There is more information here. It leaves you with a certain level of… uncertainty. Like “why was he writing a draft statement that said this in the first place?”
Time passes….
I’ve now read the original statement by Blunkett and am left wondering who hyped this whole thing into silliness. There does not seem to be any warning of imminent attack, only a general warning of what we all know already: we’re a target and the enemy is utterly ruthless.
Rowan Williams, the next Archbishop of Canterbury, has stated that it is more important to “maintain the society of states” than to depose a murderous dictator, namely Saddam Hussain.
Now if Williams was of the opinion that Saddam Hussain was just the victim of western calumny and he was in fact the generous benefactor of the Iraqi people, then it would be quite understandable that he would oppose starting (or more accurately, completing) a war with the object of deposing him and crushing Ba’athist Socialism.
Yet that is not the case: Williams describes Saddam Hussain as “brutal and violent” and yet still takes the view that the stability of those collective edifices called ‘states’ is more important that the right of Iraqi civilians not to be murdered in order to ensure the supremacy of the Ba’athist Party.
Here is a man who, as an Anglican Archbishop, is presumably concerned not with geopolitics but with Christian morality and yet takes the view that the political stability of the Islamic world’s sundry despotisms matters more ending the nightmare of the 23 million people who live or die at Saddam Hussain’s whim. The fact Hussain is “brutal and violent” matters less than the needs of Realpolitik.
This is exactly where collectivism can lead even an Archbishop, because morality and collectivism are antithetical.
When I heard on ITV that a car blew up in Yemen, killing six al Qaeda, I just knew it had to be! According to CNN my best hopes have been confirmed:
“Video from the scene in Yemen’s oil rich Marib province showed the car blown part, with most of it reduced to black ash in the desert.”
You just can’t take those damned al Qaeda anywhere without them making a complete ash of themselves!
“Sources identified one of the dead as Abu Ali, also known as Qaed Senyan al-Harthi, a former bin Laden security guard who was believed to have played a major role in the October 2000 attack on the destroyer Cole that killed 17 sailors.
Walid Al-Saqqaf, managing editor of the Yemen Times, told CNN that Ali was identified by a mark on his leg, which was blown off in the blast and found nearby. “
Yep, that’s him all over…
I wonder when they’ll bring out a new Looney Tunes series? I’ve got this image in my head of Elmer Fudd getting help from a wascally wabbit for the al Qaeda Season… more fun than duck or rabbit or deer season, and no limits on how many you bag!
Have reports of Turkish westernisation been greatly exaggerated?
It appears that an Islamist Party is now in the hot seat following yesterday’s election.
Looks like various plans in various War Rooms may now have to be hastily redrawn.
In this report the New-York based organization Human Rights Watch unequivocally describes suicide bombers, and those who send them, as war criminals.
UPDATE: There are some comments below disagreeing with the term “suicide bomber” and suggesting various alternatives that better get across the idea that these are evil people. While I certainly do think they are evil I prefer to stick with the term “suicide bomber”, as it accurately describes the factor that makes them striking and newsworthy. Any terrorist bombers – the Basque separatists ETA, for instance – can be described as homicide bombers. In our present world, when you say “suicide bombers” everyone knows in a second who’s killing who and where and why. This is an aid to efficient transmission of information, if nothing else. If the trend spreads we may need to particularize further.
However, I quite agree that the suicide angle is irrelevant to their status as terrorists and war criminals. Morally, suicide affects only themselves. I also agree that their suicide is used to glamourize and excuse their evil. This needs to be debunked. However I think the debunking can be done as well or better by argument as by changing a generally accepted and efficient term.
So let me rephrase my original post to bring all this out more clearly: “…Human Rights Watch unequivocally describes those who kill Israeli civilians, and those who send them to kill, as war criminals. It does not go along with the idea that suicide somehow legitimizes this.”
May I add that I think this report is quite big news. HRW’s website gives the impression that they are generally within the same mildly-lefty tradition as Amnesty International, Oxfam and so on. The record of this tradition in speaking out against the recent murders of Israelis by suicide bombers is not that impressive. It is therefore slightly surprising and very welcome to see HRW speaking out so clearly. Hence my title, “Breaking the Silence.”
A protester against a possible war against Iraq is urging fellow-minded people to observe a 24-hour period of total silence as a way of registering their views.
It is tempting to mock, but this writer cannot help feeling that if 99 percent of so-called peace activists took a Trappist monk-like vow of silence, the rest of us who do think there is a case for ridding the world of Saddam would be grateful. Come on you Ted Ralls, Robert Fisks, Michael Moores – shut your traps.
Go and see just how idiotic a protest by an American pacificist group, Voices in the Wilderness, looks even to the Iraqis. A group of 12 activists lead by Kathy Kelly gathered on Saturday to bring the American style of protest to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. And of course, they are protesting against President Bush and his threats of war against Iraq. What a shrewd choice of venue! Salam reports from Baghdad: Nothing in the news about it, and no one at work making any “look at those poor deluded souls going at it again” comments (which is one of two responses to this sort of thing, the other being “I wonder how much money are they getting as a ‘thank you’ gift from saddam”).”
And this is how he feels about it: Dear american friends, please stop sending her over here, she is not helping. Some people might think that this sort of thing I like to see happening. It is NOT. Kelly baby you have been used. They have put you on show for the westerners.”
I think he is too kind to those brain-disconnected idiots, trying to understand that everyone has to make a living…somehow.
I finally saw some TV news on the marvelously skilled Russia rescue.
And what angle do you think the newsies are taking? Oh, lord. 90 hostages died. SCANDAL! SCANDAL! They killed the terrorists instead of pulling out of their war in Chechnya. SHOCK! HORROR! They used GAS! They haven’t told the DOCTORS what GAS they used on PEOPLE!
I want to know if the graduation ceremony for a Journalism degree requires brain removal. These people are just simply some of the most assinine, stupid, moronic, ignorant fools I can imagine standing on two feet while still retaining control of bowels and locomotion.
The alternative actions for the Russians were stark and terrible. They could have folded. Had they done so, Russia would have sent a message. Anyone along that entire Asian border stretching half way around the world from the Pacific to to Europe would know they could grab a piece of Russia. Terrorists would be planning their next demands and an even bigger attack before the last Chechen asswipe sobered up from the victory celebration.
Presumably this means journalists can’t understand maps beyond looking at the pretty colours.
The other alternative was to try talking and talking and talking. The problem is, we aren’t dealing with normal human beings. We are dealing with folk who got that old time religion. They aren’t people anymore. They are self portable Memes. The end result of this seige, whether it was tonight or several days from now would have been a charred wreckage with eight hundred corpses burned beyond recognition.
Perhaps it’s those children’s stories journalists read on airplanes. The ones where villains actually all have a good heart if you’d only figure out what makes them act so mean.
The only option for the Russians was to go in. The worst possible outcome of that was no different than the expected outcome. Acting meant some hostages might be saved. Inaction meant they all would die. As it turned out, brilliant tactics (and probably a healthy dose of luck) let them save better than 6 out of 7 of the hostages.
Our media people have become grotesque apologists for the most evil, ugly, murderous, callous, merciless killers on the planet. They are backers of our mortal enemies, enemies of a sort we will have to wipe from the face of this planet if we are to have a prayer of retaining a semi-liberal society.
I have no respect for these walking cowflops and their jaded, venomous self-loathing. It will be a happy day indeed when we have internet video broadcasts by intelligent and educated people on location and news anchors bringing the stories together who are more than a hair style holding their ears apart. When that day arrives, it will be with the greatest pleasure that I turn my back on them as I have already done with traditional print journalism.
We thank you for putting up with this brief interruption and return you to normal sedate Samizdata programming, now in progress.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
