Okay, so the 22 Minutes piece isn't exactly high art, but you get the point perhaps. Just fourteen years ago, we watched terrorists crash jet-airliners into and bring down skyscrapers in Manhattan, with thousands dead. Watched people throwing themselves from windows to escape the smoke & flames. It hurt. It shocked. It scarred us. And we reacted in panic, rushing through new security-powers, turning ourselves into cattle in our airports, starting two wars, one of which hasn't quite ended even today, and the other of which helped birth ISIS.
We endured those attacks, far greater and more traumatic than those in Paris, and some of us at least, had mind to later regret our initial hasty rush to act, our temptation to give in to the demands of politicians who promised to keep us safe. Our stupid willingness to give the terrorists exactly what they fucking wanted. To be terrified into undermining that which makes Western society great, and waging what they could easily portray as a war on the Muslim world.
And now here we are again, having seemingly learned nothing in the years since. We have even worse politicians calling for more extreme action, demanding that we surrender what remains of our civil liberties in the name of security. We have the same incessant drumbeat for MOAR WAR. And we have an even more lunatic bunch of fanatical crazies trying to goad us into the clash of civilisations they so desperately desire.
We overreacted then, and we're on the verge of overreacting now. Calm the fuck down people, for all our sakes.
Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts
24 November, 2015
20 November, 2015
Rowson on ISIS and...
...and I don't know where CiF is currently, but the more mystery the better figuring this shit out. Love Rowson.
17 October, 2015
Salon: Putin might be right on Syria
Meant to have this up much earlier, but editing this b* down is not easy, which is a compliment. The best option ended up being to simply lop off the latter part, which referred to the wisdom of Messrs. Gordon Adams & Stephen Walt on said crisis. Maybe just read what they have to say and ignore anything below...
I'm not at all convinced that the Russians really know what they are doing here, or what the endgame looks like, but as for the Americans...
T'would seem that the Obama administration inherited from Bush & Co. the rather naïve view that if various tyrannical despots in the Middle East could be removed with the support of Western military-aid, that the populations would immediately and unhesitatingly embrace both the West, and secular democracy, despite the historical record, in which revolutions, even well-meaning ones as often as not, if not more often, create worse outcomes than that which went before. And despite both the existence of relatively widespread animosity towards the United States and the West generally in many of these countries, and the lack of a democratic tradition (the latter a problem for post-Soviet Russia also as we have seen).
The Arab Spring seemed liked it might be going well for a while (as perhaps did the War in Iraq early on), and having seen Qadaffi & Mubarak fall, Western leaders (who had previously sucked up to the same), decided to turn on al Assad, only...he didn't fall right away, and decided to fight instead. Fight to the death perhaps if it came to it. Which left the West rooting for the downfall of Assad in a civil war that involved various occasionally overlapping anti-Assad elements, some of which were explicitly Islamist, some more secular, some more or less concerned with ethnic or nationalistic factions, lining up as much against one another as against Assad.
And then the West (by which of course I mean the US) chose the amorphous opposition, not knowing into what it might morph as its champion against Assad a) assuming incorrectly as it happened that Assad would fold quickly, and b) with no awareness of whether the forces arrayed against Assad would ultimately be dominated by more Western-leaning more secular forces, or by the likes of Al Qaeda or ISIS. Not like we have the history of living memory to look back on or anything for advice...
And so the West bet against Assad, (the now much denounced but recent ally still of the US), and by proxy for an ever amporphous coalition of groups, some of which are no doubt secular and democratic, but others of which would very much like to establish an Islamic caliphate all the way to Spain thank you very much, and if they can do it with donated US weapons, thanks that very much more.
Some of the non-ISIS-aligned & non-al-Qaeda aligned elements may still exist in the coalition against which Russia is currently fighting alongside the 'regime-forces'* & Iranians, but whom would we ask ? Where/who/what is the leader of the Free Syrian Army ? Where are the five or six (by most ambitious official military estimates) of the tens of thousands of US-trained opposition-forces meant to be in place by now ?
The US' official position is that Russia's involvement is prolonging the conflict unnecessarily, as if the conflict hadn't already been going on for four years with the US' involvement, and no end in sight. I read somewhere (some beltway hackery no doubt) some speculation that the Russian involvement might in fact unite the various anti-Assad faction against the foreign 'imperialist' forces, and hasten Assad's removal. Doubt it much, but even if that were the case, who would put money on the current conflict ending without either a) Western ground-forces having to intervene (likely to no avail in the long term), b) Assad remaining in power for the foreseeable future at least, or c) a victory for Islamist extremists ?
For our more Russophobic friends, we've seen how even the most relatively peaceful transitions from authoritarian dictatorship, can simply replace one dictator with another. How in the absence of a concerted committed long-term international coalition dedicated to long-term liberal democratic reform, any hopes for a more progressive future may be dashed, even in historically liberal societies... Anyone think the US is willing or able to commit to a Marshall plan for Syria ?
* As in the still legitimate government of Syria under international law
** PS Fuck you any one who is still this far into the twenty-first century defending the mind-blowing incompetence of Microsoft Inc.
*** I hate the very notion of WYSIWYG, at least at it's implemented by our (consistently proven)-not betters.
...
Very simply, we have one secular nation helping to defend what remains of another, by invitation, against a radical Islamist insurgency that, were it to succeed, would condemn those Syrians who cannot escape to a tyranny of disorder rooted in sectarian religious animosities. And we have the great power heretofore dominant in the region hoping that the insurgency prevails. Its policy across the region, indeed, appears to rest on leveraging these very animosities.
Now we can add the names back in.
In the past week Russia has further advanced its support of Bashar al-Assad with intensified bombing runs and cruise missiles launched from warships in the Caspian Sea. Not yet but possibly, Russian troops will deploy to back the Syrian army and its assorted allies on the ground. This has enabled government troops to begin an apparently spirited new offensive against the messy stew of Islamist militias arrayed against Damascus.
It was a big week for Washington, too. First it pulled the plug on its $500 million program to train a “moderate opposition” in Syria—admittedly a tough one given that Islamists with guns in their hands tend to be immoderate. Instantly it then begins to send weapons to the militias it failed to train, the CIA having “lightly vetted” them—as it did for a time in 2013, until that proved a self-defeating mistake.
The fiction that moderates lurk somewhere continues. Out of the blue, they are now called “the Syrian Arab Coalition,” a moniker that reeks of the corridors in Langley, Virginia, if you ask me.
In Turkey, meantime, the Pentagon’s new alliance with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan government starts to play out just as the Turkish prime minister intended. All the persuasive signs are that the government was responsible for bombs that killed more than 120 people in Ankara last weekend as they protested Erdoğan’s renewed violence against Turkey’s Kurdish minority. The Middle East’s crisis has just spread into another country.
*
Since Russia reinvigorated its decades-old support for Damascus last month, the vogue among the Washington story-spinners has been to question Putin’s motives. What does Putin—not “Russia” or even “Moscow,” but Putin—want? This was never an interesting question, since the answer seemed clear, but now we have one that truly does warrant consideration.
What does the U.S. want? Why, after four years of effort on the part of the world’s most powerful military and most extensive intelligence apparatus, is Syria a catastrophe beyond anything one could imagine when anti-Assad protests egan in the spring of 2011?
After four years of war—never truly civil and now on the way to proxy—Assad’s Syria is a mangled mess, almost certainly beyond retrieval in its current form. Everyone appears to agree on this point, including Putin and Sergei Lavrov, the Russian leader’s foreign minister. There is no putting this humpty-dumpty back on any wall: The Russians readily acknowledge this, acres of groundless journalism to the contrary notwithstanding.
In the meantime, certain realities are essential to recognize. The Assad government is a sovereign entity. Damascus has the beleaguered bones of a national administration, all the things one does not readily think of as wars unfold: a transport ministry, an education ministry, embassies around the world, a seat at the U.N. In these things are the makings of postwar Syria—which, by definition, means Syria after the threat of Islamic terror is eliminated.
Anyone who doubts this is Russia’s reasoning should consider the Putin-Lavrov proposal for a negotiated transition into a post-Assad national structure. They argue for a federation of autonomous regions representing Sunni, Kurdish and Alawite-Christian populations. Putin made this plain when he met President Obama at the U.N. last month, my sources in Moscow tell me. Lavrov has made it plain during his numerous exchanges with Secretary of State Kerry.
Why would Russia’s president and senior diplomat put this on the table if they were not serious? Their proposed design for post-Assad Syria, incidentally, is a close variant of what Russia and the Europeans favor in Ukraine. In both cases it has the virtue of addressing facts on the ground. These are nations whose internal distinctions and diversity must be accommodated—not denied, not erased, but also not exacerbated—if they are to become truly modern. Russians understand the complexities of becoming truly modern: This has been the Russian project since the 18th century.
In the past week Washington has effectively elected not to support Russia’s new effort to address the Syria crisis decisively. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter’s latest phrase of the moment is “fatally flawed.” If he said it once he said it a dozen times: The Russian strategy is fatally flawed. We heard you the third time, Ash.
As to Obama, he rejects any notion that Washington has effectively ceded leadership on the Syria question—with potentially wider implications—to Moscow. In his much-noted interview with 60 Minutes last weekend, he found Putin foolhardy for risking the lives of Russian soldiers and “spending money he doesn’t have.”
Say what?
Whose strategy in Syria is fatally flawed, Mr. Carter? I assume there is no need to do more than pose the question. (Memo to SecDef: Get a new scriptwriter, someone who allots you more than one assigned phrase a week.)
As to Obama’s remarks, one wishes he were joking. We are $5 trillion into the mess that began with the invasion of Iraq a dozen years ago, and we are counting the fatalities one side or the other of a million. There are roughly 4 million Syrian refugees by the latest count. And Putin’s at fault for risking lives and blowing money? Who puts a smart guy like you up to this, Mr. President?...
I'm not at all convinced that the Russians really know what they are doing here, or what the endgame looks like, but as for the Americans...
T'would seem that the Obama administration inherited from Bush & Co. the rather naïve view that if various tyrannical despots in the Middle East could be removed with the support of Western military-aid, that the populations would immediately and unhesitatingly embrace both the West, and secular democracy, despite the historical record, in which revolutions, even well-meaning ones as often as not, if not more often, create worse outcomes than that which went before. And despite both the existence of relatively widespread animosity towards the United States and the West generally in many of these countries, and the lack of a democratic tradition (the latter a problem for post-Soviet Russia also as we have seen).
The Arab Spring seemed liked it might be going well for a while (as perhaps did the War in Iraq early on), and having seen Qadaffi & Mubarak fall, Western leaders (who had previously sucked up to the same), decided to turn on al Assad, only...he didn't fall right away, and decided to fight instead. Fight to the death perhaps if it came to it. Which left the West rooting for the downfall of Assad in a civil war that involved various occasionally overlapping anti-Assad elements, some of which were explicitly Islamist, some more secular, some more or less concerned with ethnic or nationalistic factions, lining up as much against one another as against Assad.
And then the West (by which of course I mean the US) chose the amorphous opposition, not knowing into what it might morph as its champion against Assad a) assuming incorrectly as it happened that Assad would fold quickly, and b) with no awareness of whether the forces arrayed against Assad would ultimately be dominated by more Western-leaning more secular forces, or by the likes of Al Qaeda or ISIS. Not like we have the history of living memory to look back on or anything for advice...
And so the West bet against Assad, (the now much denounced but recent ally still of the US), and by proxy for an ever amporphous coalition of groups, some of which are no doubt secular and democratic, but others of which would very much like to establish an Islamic caliphate all the way to Spain thank you very much, and if they can do it with donated US weapons, thanks that very much more.
Some of the non-ISIS-aligned & non-al-Qaeda aligned elements may still exist in the coalition against which Russia is currently fighting alongside the 'regime-forces'* & Iranians, but whom would we ask ? Where/who/what is the leader of the Free Syrian Army ? Where are the five or six (by most ambitious official military estimates) of the tens of thousands of US-trained opposition-forces meant to be in place by now ?
The US' official position is that Russia's involvement is prolonging the conflict unnecessarily, as if the conflict hadn't already been going on for four years with the US' involvement, and no end in sight. I read somewhere (some beltway hackery no doubt) some speculation that the Russian involvement might in fact unite the various anti-Assad faction against the foreign 'imperialist' forces, and hasten Assad's removal. Doubt it much, but even if that were the case, who would put money on the current conflict ending without either a) Western ground-forces having to intervene (likely to no avail in the long term), b) Assad remaining in power for the foreseeable future at least, or c) a victory for Islamist extremists ?
For our more Russophobic friends, we've seen how even the most relatively peaceful transitions from authoritarian dictatorship, can simply replace one dictator with another. How in the absence of a concerted committed long-term international coalition dedicated to long-term liberal democratic reform, any hopes for a more progressive future may be dashed, even in historically liberal societies... Anyone think the US is willing or able to commit to a Marshall plan for Syria ?
* As in the still legitimate government of Syria under international law
** PS Fuck you any one who is still this far into the twenty-first century defending the mind-blowing incompetence of Microsoft Inc.
*** I hate the very notion of WYSIWYG, at least at it's implemented by our (consistently proven)-not betters.
Labels:
Barack Obama,
Bashar al-Assad,
Cartoons,
Extremism,
Insanity,
ISIS,
John Kerry,
Political Realism,
Politics,
Russia,
Salon,
Signe Wilkinson,
Syria,
Terrorism,
United States,
Vladimir Putin,
War
30 September, 2015
So, We Support the Guys in Green, Right ?
Via an article on the Beeb re-assuring us on Obama's behalf that '"Assad must go" to ensure IS defeat'. I might cry if I were still capable.
And we'll give them arms and train them, only for that materiel & those (very very) few personnel to end up on the other side fighting against us. I can see now why the UN gave Obama a pre-emptive Nobel Peace Prize.
Labels:
Bashar al-Assad,
BBC,
Civil War,
Insanity,
Iran,
ISIS,
Islamic Extremism,
Kurdistan,
Politics,
Russia,
Syria,
Terrorism,
United States,
War,
WTF
26 September, 2015
Because We Need to Laugh at ISIS
Organisers of an art exhibition celebrating freedom of expression have found themselves removing one of the exhibits after police raised concerns it was "inflammatory" and warned it would cost an extra £36,000 to secure the event.
The artwork in question was a series of tableaux entitled 'Isis Threaten Sylvania' that used children's Sylvanian Families dolls to satirise the Isis terrorist group.
In the work Sylvanian Families dolls are seen enjoying a picnic or a day on the beach, while other black-clad dolls, some of them armed, one carrying a black flag, gather on the sidelines.
In each piece an otherwise tranquil scene appears set to turn violent.This needs a GoFundMe ASAP. How can the world continue to be denied such brilliance over £36,000 security-costs ? Satire is power peeps.
Some more background on the artist & her intent from the Guardian:
Mimsy said she had adopted a pseudonym because, as the daughter of a Syrian father whose Jewish family had to go into exile in Lebanon when he was a child, she was acutely aware of the potential risk of speaking out.
“I love my freedom,” she said. “I’m aware of the very real threat to that freedom from Islamic fascism and I’m not going to pander to them or justify it like many people on the left are doing.”
She added that the idea of using Sylvanian Families “just popped into my head” as a way of demonstrating that fanaticism was not a question of race. Though the jihadis in the work are called “MICE-IS”, some are clearly cats or koalas and others have rabbits’ ears popping out of their masks. “I’m sick and tired of people calling criticism of fanatical Islam racist, because racism is about your skin colour and radical Islam is nothing to do with that. There are millions of Muslims who are shocked by it too,” said Mimsy.
She added that she had made the tableaux between December 2014 and May 2015 and had looked on in horror as, one by one, her imagined scenarios came true. In one scene, jihadis lurk outside a schoolroom, while a class of girls sit at their desks; in another, gunmen bristle on the horizon as holidaymakers sunbathe on a beach. “It was creepy, because each time I imagined a scene it happened in reality. I made the beach scene before the Tunisian massacre and the schoolroom scene before Boko Haram abducted the schoolgirls in Nigeria,” she said.We need this.
12 September, 2015
9/12
So, another '9/11' has passed us by with no major drama, that I noticed anyway, and no major terrorist-attacks, bar of course those that are now routine across parts of the Islamic world thanks in large part to the destabilising efforts and warmongering of lunatic politicians in the West. Whatever.
I've always held that the twelfth of September, not the eleventh, should be a national day of mourning and remembrance for the United States. Not so much for the day itself, or any specific events thereof, but as a general symbolic signifier of all the insanity that proceeded from America's reaction to the traumatic events of the day before. The Patriot Act. The War in Iraq. Extraordinary Rendition. Illegal (for some of which retroactive amnestywas had to be later granted) spying on Americans. Secret intelligence-deals with European countries. The constant fearmongering. The indefinite detainment in Guantanamo Bay of civilians without trial, often on the basis of mere hearsay; of individuals, many of whom were later found to be completely innocent. The torture of inmates in prisons in Iraq. The extrajudicial executions by drone. The 'Axis of Evil' rhetoric and subsequent toxification of what had been thawing relations with Iran. 'Homeland Security.' 'Enemy Combatants.' 'With us or against us.' 'Old Europe.' 'Freedom Fries.' The trillions of dollars wasted. The Dead. The Displaced. The countries utterly demolished. The encouragement and inspiration given to a whole new generation of would-be jihadis and extremists. The rise of ISIS.
I was as horrified as anyone to see those towers fall. To see the smoke rising from the Pentagon. To think of the last moments of Flight 93. To imagine what it would be like to be driven to jump from the windows of a fucking skyscraper, out of desperation to avoid the smoke and the flames. Bodies falling from the sky on live television.
Today, I feel almost nothing when I think of '9/11.' A numbness perhaps. A cold emptiness ? But mostly, nothing. It happened. It was horrible. What came after, what was done in the name of that tragedy, that outrage, was infinitely worse. And is with us still. And in the name of the so-called 'War on Terror' that by definition can never end, perhaps with us always.
We need a name for the day perhaps. Something to match the Orwellian monstrosity of naming the 11th 'Patriot Day.' Something to memorialise the moment that the United States collectively lost its shit. Abandoned perhaps forever the values that had made it the greatest beacon of liberal values in the world for over two-hundred years. Shit, something, if nothing else, to remind us that there was a time when we weren't always at war. When we didn't routinely give away our liberties without question and without protest in the name of 'security.'
We have a whole generation coming into voting-age who have never known anything else. For whom the police-state and the endless war of the post-9/11 era is 'normal.' Well, for my own part, fuck that. No, it will never be normal. It will never be right.
I've always held that the twelfth of September, not the eleventh, should be a national day of mourning and remembrance for the United States. Not so much for the day itself, or any specific events thereof, but as a general symbolic signifier of all the insanity that proceeded from America's reaction to the traumatic events of the day before. The Patriot Act. The War in Iraq. Extraordinary Rendition. Illegal (for some of which retroactive amnesty
I was as horrified as anyone to see those towers fall. To see the smoke rising from the Pentagon. To think of the last moments of Flight 93. To imagine what it would be like to be driven to jump from the windows of a fucking skyscraper, out of desperation to avoid the smoke and the flames. Bodies falling from the sky on live television.

We need a name for the day perhaps. Something to match the Orwellian monstrosity of naming the 11th 'Patriot Day.' Something to memorialise the moment that the United States collectively lost its shit. Abandoned perhaps forever the values that had made it the greatest beacon of liberal values in the world for over two-hundred years. Shit, something, if nothing else, to remind us that there was a time when we weren't always at war. When we didn't routinely give away our liberties without question and without protest in the name of 'security.'
We have a whole generation coming into voting-age who have never known anything else. For whom the police-state and the endless war of the post-9/11 era is 'normal.' Well, for my own part, fuck that. No, it will never be normal. It will never be right.
01 July, 2015
Today(ish) in Republicans Saying Horrible Things
Tom DeLay on the recent decision on same-sex-marriage by the Supreme Court:
Rick Perry on the Supreme Court striking down Texas' absurd law requiring abortion-clinics to maintain hospital-level facilities:
Bill O'Reilly on the Affordable Care Act and the Supreme Court:
Rand Paul, who just met with racist anti-government radical Cliven Bundy:
Erick Erickson on same-sex marriage and homosexuality:
Bryan Fischer, on how the Supremes' ruling on same-sex marriage, is enciting terrorism:
Well, we've already found a secret memo coming out of the Justice Department. They're now going to go after twelve new perversions: things like bestiality, polygamy, having sex with little boys and making that legal. And not only that, but they have a whole list of strategies to go after the churches, the pastors, and any businesses that tries to assert their religious liberty. This is comin' and it's coming like a tidal wave....They're coming down with twelve new perversions, and LGBT just isn't, is only the beginning. They're going to start expanding it to the other perversions.Very precise, and very magical number that: twelve.
Rick Perry on the Supreme Court striking down Texas' absurd law requiring abortion-clinics to maintain hospital-level facilities:
"The Supreme Court's stay unnecessarily puts lives in danger by allowing unsafe facilities to continue to perform abortions," said the Republican presidential candidate in a statement. "I am confident the court will ultimately uphold these commonsense measures to protect the health and safety of Texas women."Women's health, yeah that's what he's concerned about in shutting down clinics that often provide other services for women's health, beside abortion.
Bill O'Reilly on the Affordable Care Act and the Supreme Court:
Now on healthcare, the issue is again greater good. Obamacare is obviously yet another federal entitlement program designed to help poor Americans at the expense of non-poor Americans. The president sold the law on the basis that it's a benefit for all; but only his party bought that....Subsequently, health insurance costs have risen for many working Americans, and a significant number of Doctors are refusing to take government-mandated insurance programs. But the four liberal judges don't really care about the overall impact of Obamacare. They want free healthcare for the poor. That's what they want. And they'll find a legal justification for it, no matter what! the actual law says. Add in Roberts and Kennedy, and presto! another enormous social safety-net that benefits the have-nots survives a valid legal challenge.Note that there is no overlap between 'working Americans' and 'poor Americans' for Billo.
Rand Paul, who just met with racist anti-government radical Cliven Bundy:
You can be a minority because of the color of your skin or the shade of your ideology. #StandWithRand
Erick Erickson on same-sex marriage and homosexuality:
First of all, you're only talkin' three to five percent of the population. Now, I know a lot of people, the thought is that you're born gay. That's, actually not really true in most cases. In some cases, I think it probably is. But in a lot of cases, if you got back to it, there are parental issues, there's abuse, and and that has a lot to do with it. And as you see a collapse of family -- I don't think that it's a coincidence that a collapse of family is, is directly inverse proportional or inverse related to the rise in people who identify as being gay.Are we really living in the year 2015 ? Sure it's not still 1985 ?
Bryan Fischer, on how the Supremes' ruling on same-sex marriage, is enciting terrorism:
I've not heard any body talking about this angle of what the Supreme Court did on Friday in their ruling imposing sodomy-based marriage on the United States of America. Now the whole world, this includes the Supreme Court, they know how the religion of peace deals with homosexuals -- they tie them to chairs and they throw them off of eight-storey buildings, and if they survive the fall, they stone them to death....Now how does the Muslim world justify their attacks on the United States ? Because they believe that we are the chief exporter of wickedness and decadence in the world. That's why they call us 'The Great Satan'. When we insult their god, their religion, their prophet, or their values, they claim a divine sanction to punish us for our transgressions. Now, the Left, interesting enough, actually agrees with the Muslim world on this score. Remember what happened with Pamela Geller and her 'Draw Mohammed Contest' in Garland, Texas. When the, when two Muslims shot the place up, who did the Left blame? They blamed Pamela Geller. She had provoked, she had incited, she had insulted the blessed prophet Mohammed and thus had brought this violence on herself. According to the Left, she got what she deserved. But now, what the Supreme Court did on Friday was to insult and offend the entire Muslim world, by celebrating and gloating and gushing over a sin that Muslims regard as so offensive to Allah that its practitioners must be thrown to their deaths. So the Supreme Court just gave the Muslim world another reason to attack us, and a terrorist attack appears imminent. So, if Muslims attack us, and they refer in any way to our celebration of homosexuality as part of the reason, then according to Liberals, culpability must be laid for that attack at the feet of the United States Supreme Court.He'll be jumping for joy the second a bomb goes off, and the ambulance-sirens start to be heard in the distance. 'See, I told ya! It's the fault of all those perverted corrupt homosexual Liberals destroyin' America!'
Labels:
Abortion,
ACA,
Bill O'Reilly,
Bryan Fischer,
Clive Bunden,
Erick Erickson,
Healthcare,
Racism,
Rand Paul,
Religion,
Republicans,
Rick Perry,
Same-Sex Marriage,
Supreme Court,
Terrorism,
Tom DeLay
21 June, 2015
See America Has to be Exceptional No Matter What, Whether That is in a Good Way or a Bad
By CHRISTOPHER BODEEN, Associated Press
BEIJING (AP) — Often the target of U.S. human rights accusations, China wasted little time returning such charges following the shooting at a historic black church in South Carolina that left nine people dead. Elsewhere around the world, the attack renewed perceptions that Americans have too many guns and have yet to overcome racial tensions.
Some said the attack reinforced their reservations about personal security in the U.S. — particularly as a non-white foreigner — while others said they'd still feel safe if they were to visit.
Especially in Australia and northeast Asia, where firearms are strictly controlled and gun violence almost unheard of, many were baffled by the determination among many Americans to own guns despite repeated mass shootings, such as the 2012 tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, where a gunman killed 20 children and six adults.
"We don't understand America's need for guns," said Philip Alpers, director of the University of Sydney's GunPolicy.org project that compares gun laws across the world. "It is very puzzling for non-Americans."
A frontier nation like the U.S., Australia had a similar attitude toward firearms prior to a 1996 mass shooting that killed 35. Soon after, tight restrictions on gun ownership were imposed and no such incidents have been reported since.
A similar effect has been seen elsewhere.
"The USA is completely out of step with the rest of the world. We've tightened our gun laws and have seen a reduction," said Claire Taylor, the director of media and public relations at Gun Free South Africa.
Ahmad Syafi'i Maarif, a prominent Indonesian intellectual and former leader of Muhammadiyah, one of the country's largest Muslim organizations, said the church shooting shocked many.
"People all over the world believed that racism had gone from the U.S. when Barack Obama was elected to lead the superpower, twice," he said. "But the Charleston shooting has reminded us that in fact, the seeds of racism still remain and were embedded in the hearts of small communities there, and can explode at any time, like a terrorist act by an individual."
A 21-year-old white man, Dylann Storm Roof, now faces nine counts of murder for the South Carolina shooting. An acquaintance said Roof had complained that "blacks were taking over the world."
Many places around the world struggle with racism and prejudice against outsiders, but mass shootings in the U.S., where the Constitution's second amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, often receive widespread global attention.Probably, no-one's more disturbed by or frustrated by the American obsession with guns and flat-out denial of continuing racism (shout-out for Chief Justice John Roberts ! *) than...the slight minority sane population of Americans. Unfortunately, the history & the culture of said nation seems to have encouraged or attracted the development of an above-normal percentage of out-and-out lunatics in the population.
And as for the thing about the US being out of step with the rest of the world, the thing you have to understand, is that this is a point of pride in the US, where obsession with national greatness and inherent national superiority has turned the international and indeed consensus generally into something inherently suspicious.
One case in point being, the US' pride in being just one of three nations still refusing adoption of the metric system. The US had pledged to do so, and presumably originally intended in fact to someday so do, but at some point, as it dragged its feet on and on, rather than let itself feel any guilt or sense of failure over the continuing delays over adopting Metric, politicians instead seized on the outlier status of the US as a point of pride, and started to turn what was once accepted consensus over international standards into an absurd bogeyman-style conspiracy.
Hence, here we are in the year 2015, such that when a Democratic candidate for the presidency says this:
Let's be bold -- let's join the rest of the world and go metric," he said during his launch. He clarified during a question-and-answer session after that it would be a "symbolic integration" meant to show goodwill to the world.
He acknowledged that shifting to the metric system could cost the U.S., but that "the economic benefits that would come in would surpass those costs of putting up new signs and the like."
Republican Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has already incorporated it into an attack. In an email to POLITICO, his spokesman Michael Reed said Chafee is a “Typical Democrat — wants to make America more European. Governor Jindal would rather make the world more American.”
Because the entire rest-of-the-world would benefit so much from replacing something as easily understandable and easily calculated as a base-ten system of measurement with something from the Middle Ages based around such things at the size of a particular monarch's foot or hand !
The country is run, to the shame of its sane residents, by a bunch of childish extremists. The sort of people who, in the wake of a historically black church being shot up by an evident white-supremacist extremist racist (the event itself in the wake of so many other acts of mass-shootings and so many other demonstrations of racial violence), argue that we must not make the event 'about race', and that those who want to bring discussions of gun-control into the debate are radical demagogues, and who insist that, really, the asshole was targeting Christians, not blacks.
Who did so, despite his own words to a survivor of the attack, explicitly outlining his motivations, and his desire to start a race-war. Some of whom, will no doubt continue to do so, even given the recent discovery of an online manifesto making his violent racist aims and motivations even more explicit.
The United States' problem is perhaps its own success. A nation rich and powerful for much of its short history, and so rich and powerful since the end of the Second World War that it has come to see itself as beyond criticism, as beyond the purview of mere mortals. The US is/has long been suffering from a sort of God-complex. Rather than embracing criticism, and learning from its mistakes, the tendency is to demonise the critics, and to celebrate even its own failings (such as say the dismal state of healthcare in America) as successes (it's a sign of how free we how we compared to you Euro-commies !). Live free, die young and poor; But opportunity abounds; You could have been rich and successful...theoretically...
Perhaps demographic changes will one day reduce the ageing lunatic fringe to enough of a minority that the non-maniacs can take over the asylum. The numbers are promising. Then again, the lunatics may just burn down the asylum before that could/in order that that never be allowed to...happen.
Especially as the tool of choice in burning down this particular asylum would likely be not lighters, but cheap, readily-available, and hugely (especially, thanks to the NRA, since the inauguration of a certain black president) stockpiled bullets.
* As always, Thanks Harriet Miers !
Labels:
American Exceptionalism,
Bobby Jindal,
Charleston,
Extremism,
Guns,
Insanity,
Lincoln Chafee,
Lunatics,
Metric System,
NRA,
Politics,
Racism,
Republicans,
Shooting,
Terrorism,
United States,
Violence
19 June, 2015
Compare and Contrast
The thing I love about cartoons like this in the British press, is the incredible detail involved -- a whole story contained in a single image. That, and the relative absence of labels.
Half the fun's just trying to figure who's who and what's what -- As with the purple speedo there on Farage; well I think it's Farage -- The commentators online seem to think it's Putin for some reason.
Editorial cartoons in other countries aren't like this. For an example, I sought out cagle.com, always a source of some of the worst cartooning in America. And on the third page, I found a perfect example of what I was looking for:
Not to pick on this guy, and he can draw when he wants to, judging by the other work on his site, but this just says everything about the state of editorial-cartoons in America: Everything has to be labelled, can't say anything controversial, when in doubt, go for the cliches.
Something bad happened in South Carolina. Hate struck the treestate like an act of G-d. Yeah, that, or a racist nut-job white guy went out and intentionally shot up a historically black church, killing a bunch of innocent black people who were there to worship:
But we don't want to be talking about race, just as we don't want to talk about the proliferation of guns in America. Too controversial ! At best, maybe we could mention mental illness. But easier still to just take a readily identifiable symbol for a state (and the state is the real victim of course, huh Nikki Haley ?), put a label on it anyway, then draw a lightning-bolt labelled 'hate'.
Speaking of that symbol, I think there may be something missing...
Oh yeah ! Huh, wonder why he left out the crescent-moon ? Can't be that there wasn't room. Can't be too difficult to draw. Nah, it's just a mystery.
Now I know the media-markets are different, I know the Guardian doesn't make a profit, and I know what a shitty time it is for cartoonists in general these days. But, even when the cash was flowing more freely, even when the print-media was still flourishing, shit like this proliferated.
Newspaper-editors and readers alike see editorial cartoons as disposable, because, by and large, they are. And yet as demonstrated by the likes of Martin Rowson, they don't have to be. They can be works of bloody art.
03 June, 2015
Welcome to 2002
No shit.
The United States overreacted to the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers, according to the incoming vice–chancellor of the University of Oxford.
The panic that ensued following the September 11 attacks played a part in the US launching the so-called War on Terror.
As did the opportunity for a massive power-grab by the government, the chance to undermine constitutionally established civil-liberties, a massive financial opportunity for the defence and security-industries, and draft-dodgers George W Bush & Dickface getting a chance to play at Soldier in the Middle-East. But much props for 'so-called' -- Far too many use that ridiculous term unquestioningly.
Louise Richardson, an expert in terrorism, said the US’ response was a symptom of the fact that such attacks are a “new experience” for the country.
![]() |
Aftermath of Bombing by Anarchists of Wall Street, 16 Sep. 1920 |
Speaking at a higher education conference in London, the principal of the University of St Andrews went on to argue that the UK is more resilient when it comes to terrorist attacks, due to the troubles in Northern Ireland.
What the fuck does that mean ? 'More resilient' ? Because there wasn't a collective freakout and a rush to undermine even further British civil-liberties ? Because there wasn't a massive expenditure on the so-called 'War on Terror' in the UK, which has worked hand-in-glove with the US, including enabling mass-spying on the population on behalf of the American security-services, participation in extraordinary rendition, and partnership in the insane war in Iraq ?
Exploring the psychological impact of terrorism, she went on to argue that random attacks have such an impact on the public because “if nobody is chosen, nobody is safe”, the Daily Mail reported.
Professor Richardson went on to tell the audience, according to The Times: “Central to any terrorism campaign should be a resilient population and, I have to say, the British population in the course of the Troubles and violence in Northern Ireland proved really quite resilient.Again, what the fuck does that mean ? How is it measured ? Is it that there weren't mass-suicides by despondent Brits ? That the public didn't respond by rioting en-masse in the largest cities ? Or is it just projection of a facile stereotype of the British stiff upper lip & 'blitz-spirit' ? 'Keep Calm and Carry On', and all that...
...An internationally respected scholar and author of the study 'What Terrorist Want: Understanding the Enemy Containing the Threat', Professor Richardson often advises policy makers on the topics of terrorism and security.
They want you to be afraid and make stupid decisions. They want you to over-react and over-spend. They want you to make all the insane choices that were made by the United States and the United Kingdom, likely aided by 'advisers' & 'experts' at the time. And despite the passage of time, no we haven't learned, and yes, we are still overreacting.
15 April, 2015
26 March, 2015
Always with the Unintended Consequences
So, it seems like the investigation into the Germanwings crash in France is pointing towards the possibility that one of the pilots was locked out of the cabin, and unable to re-enter and prevent the ultimately fatal descent into the mountains.
a) This is horrifying
b) I'd predict that one phrase likely to be popping up sooner or later is 'who could have predicted' or one of the popular variants thereof. Ya know, as with Condi circa 2001/2.
Were there no warnings of unintended consequences back 'round about 2002, when the FAA was frantically rethinking airport security, specifically to prevent the one particular vulnerability exploited on 11 September, 2001, without so much consideration towards the...entire rest of aviation history ? This isn't ancient history. I'm thinking...someone out there probably considered this sort of eventuality, and that's it's only a matter of time before a reporter unearths it.
And as for more recent history, well...
Air Canada, 2006: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37a9dd60-18a9-4155-a6bb-8a8e8976bc04
Air India, 2013: http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2013/05/16/air-india-captain-locked-out-after-cockpit-door-jams-mid-flight/2165305/
Transavia, 2013: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/9838956/Pilot-locked-out-of-cockpit-as-co-pilot-slept.html
LAM Mozambique Airlines, 2013: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAM_Mozambique_Airlines_Flight_470
Air New Zealand, 2014: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11288373
Ethiopian Airlines, 2014: http://www.flyingmag.com/news/bizarre-ethiopian-airlines-hijacking-ends-copilots-arrest
That's all I found in a fairly brief search, but the prevalence of stories from 2013/4 is interesting perhaps. Just related to the timing of the uptake of the newer technologies ?
I suspect the plane in the 2006 incident may have not had the current level of fortification, given that the crew in that story were able to 'remove the door from its hinges.' Has some interesting verbiage nonetheless:
Eventually, the crew forced the door open by taking the door off its hinges completely, and the pilots safely landed the plane -- although in the event that the pilot was unable to access the cockpit, the first officer is also fully qualified to land the aircraft.
Air Canada Jazz said the incident is a first for them. But in Canada, a pilot getting locked out of the cockpit is a "non-reportable" incident, meaning airlines have no obligation to inform Transport Canada about it as they investigate themselves.
However, airline analysts warn that incidents like these are disasters waiting to happen -- both in terms of accidents related to human error and vulnerability to terrorism.Oh, and one bonus story also from 2006 that may relate to earlier theories of what happened to this flight: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2006/dec/19/theairlineindustry.travel
Disturbingly, there had already been related emergencies on other airlines. After a 2003 Ryanair episode with another Boeing 737, Irish investigators had warned of "the potential for a full-scale accident" in exactly the kind of pressurisation emergency that later caused the Greek crash. They said: "With the locked door policy endeavouring to solve one specific problem, it may be creating another one or more problems that could impinge on aviation safety ... The implications for flight safety in the specific scenario of flight crew hypoxia is not being addressed by a locked cockpit door policy. This is a ... problem."
Similarly in 2004, British investigators described how a fire broke out in the passenger cabin of a British Airways plane taking off from Heathrow. Cabin staff spent time desperately banging on the locked cockpit door to try to attract the pilots' attention. The British investigation report warned that "both the flight crew and cabin crew were initially hampered in their efforts to deal with the incident promptly due to their inability to communicate with each other across the locked flight deck door."
Chris Roberts, a recently retired senior airline pilot and manager, told us: "With the locked cockpit door in place, communications are more difficult." He says: "Some regulators and airlines have dealt with this adequately but in some cases there is still more work and more training needed."
By contrast, shortly before September 11 2001, when cockpit doors were still generally open, an Aer Lingus stewardess was able to save the day by rushing in three times to warn her captain that passenger oxygen masks had dropped. Air conditioning had inadvertently been switched off. The inquiry into that incident found that oxygen deprivation had probably confused the pilots: "The continued persistence of the [stewardess] in keeping the flight crew advised of the deteriorating cabin condition did, without doubt, contribute to the safe conclusion of this serious incident."
As late as January 2001, British Airways was adamant that locked doors were too dangerous to adopt. Following an incident in which a mentally ill passenger attacked the pilots of a jumbo jet, BA chief executive Rod Eddington said: "We will not be locking the door because it does not make sense ... Locking the door would cause more safety problems than it would solve." But September 11 caused a panic reaction. Locked doors were hastily installed on planes all over the world despite a warning from the then US national transportation safety board vice-chairwoman, Carol Carmody. She said in May 2002: "We must be sure that crew communications during emergency systems are not compromised ... Access to the cockpit can be very important in an emergency."Oh, and I'd almost forgotten this one: http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a10270/in-light-of-mh370-evidence-could-plane-cockpits-be-too-secure-16611747/
John Magaw, the first person to head the nascent TSA in 2001, told CNN that an always-locked cockpit was a concern since the outset. He said he told airlines, "Don't lock those doors so that you can't get in from the outside if something happens, and it fell on deaf ears," alluding to a well-publicized case of pilots who "flew past the airport because they were both asleep." However, some pilots scoffed at the idea that a locked cockpit is a serious concern, noting that planes are programmed to fly safely and even land on autopilot in the unlikely event both pilots nod off.
Former Jetblue CEO and founder David Neeleman, whose airline was the first to install the reinforced cockpit doors system-wide after 9/11, tells PopMech that the latest troubling scenario means that "perhaps there needs to be way to get back in that door."
"But nobody ever thought about having to protect the passengers from the pilots," he says.
16 March, 2015
My favorite Irish Republican
Oh, look, we've got mail:
Uh...Gerry Adams ? The Omagh bombers ? The geniuses that helped bring about the redevelopment in the Arndale area of Manchester ? The would-be assassins of Thatcher in Brighton ? The dicks that brought about the closure of the rotating restaurant at the top of the Post Office Tower ? The would-be bombers of Canary Wharf ? Miscellaneous murderers of a few thousand people in Northern Ireland ? Wait, wait...you are referring to the IRA, right ?.....
Oh, you mean the radical bomb-throwing extremist fuckers in the US Republican party. Nah, mate...I don't hold with yer actual terrorists, like... Who d'you take me for ? Peter King ?
Uh...Gerry Adams ? The Omagh bombers ? The geniuses that helped bring about the redevelopment in the Arndale area of Manchester ? The would-be assassins of Thatcher in Brighton ? The dicks that brought about the closure of the rotating restaurant at the top of the Post Office Tower ? The would-be bombers of Canary Wharf ? Miscellaneous murderers of a few thousand people in Northern Ireland ? Wait, wait...you are referring to the IRA, right ?.....
Oh, you mean the radical bomb-throwing extremist fuckers in the US Republican party. Nah, mate...I don't hold with yer actual terrorists, like... Who d'you take me for ? Peter King ?
Labels:
Arndale Centre,
Bomb Throwers,
Brighton,
Canary Wharf,
Extremism,
Gerry Adams,
IRA,
Manchester,
Margaret Thatcher,
Murder,
Northern Ireland,
Omagh,
Peter King,
Politics,
Republicans,
Tea Party,
Terrorism
05 February, 2015
Stay classy, Cristina...
Argentine President Mocks Chinese Accent on Twitter
But, bad economy, debt, the oh-so-convenient death of a political enemy... I can see why Cristina might see any distraction from domestic politics back in Argentina as a.....Oh, yeah...This could be a bad sign...
Argentina’s President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner caused a furore on Wednesday by joking about her hosts’ accents while on a state visit to China seeking badly needed investment.
Fernández tried to mimic a Chinese accent by switching “rs” with “ls” in a tweet in Spanish that translates as: “Did they only come for lice and petloleum.”
...
The controversy comes as Fernández struggles to distance herself from the mysterious death of prosecutor Alberto Nisman, who was found dead in his bathroom on 18 January, hours before he was to elaborate on allegations that Fernández helped shield Iranians connected to the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community centre that killed 85.
But, bad economy, debt, the oh-so-convenient death of a political enemy... I can see why Cristina might see any distraction from domestic politics back in Argentina as a.....Oh, yeah...This could be a bad sign...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)