I wonder how long it would be before Condi Rice, Rumsfled, Tony Blair, and Jack Straw (UK forign secretery) would blame this on Iran and Syria. British caught on video
Why doesn't the human right organizations require that there be cameras installed in all jails?
Monday, February 13, 2006
Propaganda Tai Chi
Unlike the tao, the chien relies on internal power (soft, nonviolent movement). It is the smoothness in motion which is the sword's forte. This is another reason why only those who have studied tai chi chuan for many years should study sword, for its techniques are similar to "push hands." Push hands, sometimes called "Joined hands," is the foundation of tai chi free fighting. It is a sensitivity teaching technique in which one learns to "feel" the opponent's power and fine changes of movement. One learns to "stick" to the opponent and, later, to use the opponent’s energy against him, rather than expend one's own energy in defense. Source
If you remember in the run up to the Iraq war the “liberal media” were as much part of the propaganda effort, at times even more so, as the right wing TV and radio. Judit Miller's stories were front page items on New York times.
My impression is that the stories that are planted in the “liberal media” tends to be more sophisticated. To feed the fear you have the usual suspects of anonymous sources, unnamed officials, and/or intelligent sources but the plot is usually more hidden. It is not unlike the difference between a Rambo (Fox news) to Hitchcok classic (NPR, New York times..). There is a common theme, real factual data (such as report from UN inspectors) are either completely missing, or discounted in favor of the un-verified information by unnamed “intelligent sources”.
To see the war marketing logic, you first have to see the reality as is today. Then look for potential growth areas. As far as war machinery is concern, the war in Iraq has started and every one is convienced that it must go on until "mission is [again] accopmplished"; It is money in the bank! The war machinery is willing to concede error in the run up on that war if it can get a new war started. It has nothing to lose, so what that so-and-so lied. The misson must go one, and growth is the name of the game, it can give reputation of a politician as long as it helps the bottom line.
It seems to me that the new war is positioned as tool to end the Iranian nuclear weapons program. But there is no real data to back the claims of a real nuclear weapons program. So you have the orthodox Iranian Predsident remarks, which by itself is not enough. It would be kind of strange to say you need to go to war with a country because its president doesn't have the same unerstanding of European history as you would like. Never know, may be this is "War to Teach History". But you don't want to get too fancy here, you need to go back to the basics, and that is to get the project off the gound nothing works like "mushroom cloud" fear, with a few they are Hitler, we are Churchil analogies. There is just one minor problem!
Fact is that IAEA inspectors have been looking at the Iranian nuclear program and haven't concluded that Iran is working on weapons program. So what is the propaganda to do? How about this: “Outed CIA officer [Valerie Plame Wilson] was working on Iran, intelligence sources say”. This is very clever move. My first impression is that there has been a serious improvement in the Bush administration's propaganda war. The nature of propaganda against Iran, at least some of them, tend to be more sophisticated that the ones against Iraq, and this is cream of the crop! The first two paragraph of the article says:
The unmasking of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson by White House officials in 2003 caused significant damage to U.S. national security and its ability to counter nuclear proliferation abroad, RAW STORY has learned.
According to current and former intelligence officials, Plame Wilson, who worked on the clandestine side of the CIA in the Directorate of Operations as a non-official cover (NOC) officer, was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran.
....
This is Tai Chi of propaganda, use the opponent's force (agenda) against itself. The "Liberals" want to get Bush, so why not plant a story, theb use their energy to promote the next war. It is a masterfull use of the “liberal media” to propagate the myth. And already others have jumped on the bandwagon: Valerie Plame Leak Sabotaged America's Iran-Watching Intelligence Effort
When you read the original article, at minimum the conclusions are:
there is a significant damage to ability of the CIA to monitor the Iranian activities. Conclusion: We can't trust the CIA assessments, in a way you have (or “it is prudent”) to assume the worst. This is very much like claims that we don't have enough Arabic translators, my guess is that source of weaknesses in the translation department are the neocon circles. If there are not enough translators, then wouldn't you it coause doubts to any analysis that doesn't enforce fear. There is no way you can say Iraq doesn't have WMD, since the other side soon says that you don't have enough translators, it is there you just haven't found the document. Reality is that all the real intelligence and predictions on Iraq were accurate, but the neocons are not interested in reality. They are only after creating an enviornment where their war agenda is promoted.
Reading the article, one would also conclude that Iran must be working on some weapons program. Eevnthough it never says so, it makes arguments taking this assumtion for granted.
Both of which is exactly what the war machinery would like to establish. It enforces the "mushroom cloud" fear, without ever saying it. That is TahiChi!
IAEA has been investigatinvg Iran for last 3 years, they would have known about any nuclear programs Iran may have had. The best they can come up with is that there are some drawings that could be used to build a nuclear weapons. But this was the whole point of NPT (non-prolifiration threaty), it was obvious that you could not keep the information secret, so countries signed treaties so that it would not develop nuclear weapons.
May be Ms Palmer was working on the Iran nuclear issues, I don't know. But one thing I can see is that this story and the timing of it is too fishy. If it writes like Judit Miller, talks like Judit Miller.... Then it is a Judit Miller.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Thursday, February 09, 2006
"Israel unveils plan to encircle Palestinian state
If the Jewish state were to annex all of the Jordan Valley, which is dotted with small settlements, it would leave a future Palestinian state on the West Bank entirely surrounded by Israel and without a direct link to neighbouring countries.
....
"He [Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert] talked about Israel having to maintain a Jewish majority in the state of Israel, meaning that we have to create a new border, what is called final borders. He knows that we can't negotiate with Hamas. So the only conclusion that can be derived from this is that, in order to reach final borders, Israel will have to carry out additional [unilateral] withdrawals," said Mishal.
Creating a border inside a country.... a Jail?
If the Jewish state were to annex all of the Jordan Valley, which is dotted with small settlements, it would leave a future Palestinian state on the West Bank entirely surrounded by Israel and without a direct link to neighbouring countries.
....
"He [Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert] talked about Israel having to maintain a Jewish majority in the state of Israel, meaning that we have to create a new border, what is called final borders. He knows that we can't negotiate with Hamas. So the only conclusion that can be derived from this is that, in order to reach final borders, Israel will have to carry out additional [unilateral] withdrawals," said Mishal.
Creating a border inside a country.... a Jail?
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Hypocrisy and Cartoons as I see it
Juan Cole had an interesting post More on the Hypocrisy of the West and Cartoongate
Here is what I see...
Taking one's frustration on innocent is in no way monopoly of the Muslim extremists. If you recall right after 9/11, middle eastern looking individuals and even Sikhs (since they were turban) were target of violent reactions in the US.
For me personally what is more troubling is the coverage of the issue much more so than the cartoons. Here in the fury of comments and justifications, I see deeply racist remarks. Take for example this statement that appeared on many of the news items on the issue:
"We'd take Muslim protests more seriously if they weren't so hypocritical," Berlin's Die Welt wrote as it published a Danish cartoon. "The imams were quiet when Syrian television showed Jewish rabbis as cannibals in a prime-time series."
You think this statement was well thought through, and it wasn't some random off the cuff remark. But did the editor even bother to ask the Imams? The editor seems to have been blessed with gene that "hypocritical" Muslims are lacking. Essentially, I see a superiority complex that has blinded the editor's judgment.
Don't all atrocities start the same place, "we" are good and "they" are for one reason or another lacking that goodness we take for granted? There seems to be two different yard sticks to judge people, one for "us" and anther for "them".
Every time George Bush commits a crime in Iraq, we Americans don't go in the streets to protest it. At times even majority of people support the war claiming it would bring gift of democracy and respect to human right, and Western values to the inferior people. Every nonsense movie that comes out of Hollywood we don't feel the responsibility to be in the street to defend the Muslim characters. At the same time we expect the Muslims to be on the street to oppose the radicals in case of the cartoon incident, or protest Syrian TV shows.
For a mainstream Muslim looking at both side of the issue, what is more ironic is that these radicals for most part behave quite Western, they seems to have learned their lessons quite well, true they do their “Shock and Awe” with rudimentary and inferior tools. But nonetheless the radicals and Westerners believe that violence would bring about the desired political change.
For Editor of the Die Welt every Muslim has to prove himself. As in after 9/11 every Muslim are somehow guilty of the act of handful of people and it is his responsibility to be proactive and clear his reputation. Otherwise it is another indication of their violent nature, and vindication for our own peaceful and civilized gene! Ironically this is just like the Muslim radicals that expect every Danish, or German citizen to prove themselves because of action of few cartoonist. It is for instance expected for the radicals to know that Danish people are for most part tolerant people.
In Western mind set though, hypocrisy has become a family value. For the editor of the Die Welt , without any real data to back up his claim, it is perfectly understandable to justify his action by stereotyping all Muslims, or at least their “imams”, as essentially antisemitic. Even though Muslims have gone to great length to separate religion of Judaism from political ambitions of Zionism in their conflict with Israeli.
In 1945 the Berlin's Die Welt editor would not have seen Jewish Rabbis as individuals, in 2006 it has difficulty realizing that Muslim Imams, just as individual Muslims, each have their own opinions. One can only hope come 2046 we can put these cartoons and editorials in Museums and try to learn about our own faults by communicating with others instead of trying to explain our own prejudices because of our perceived faults of others.
Here is what I see...
Taking one's frustration on innocent is in no way monopoly of the Muslim extremists. If you recall right after 9/11, middle eastern looking individuals and even Sikhs (since they were turban) were target of violent reactions in the US.
For me personally what is more troubling is the coverage of the issue much more so than the cartoons. Here in the fury of comments and justifications, I see deeply racist remarks. Take for example this statement that appeared on many of the news items on the issue:
"We'd take Muslim protests more seriously if they weren't so hypocritical," Berlin's Die Welt wrote as it published a Danish cartoon. "The imams were quiet when Syrian television showed Jewish rabbis as cannibals in a prime-time series."
You think this statement was well thought through, and it wasn't some random off the cuff remark. But did the editor even bother to ask the Imams? The editor seems to have been blessed with gene that "hypocritical" Muslims are lacking. Essentially, I see a superiority complex that has blinded the editor's judgment.
Don't all atrocities start the same place, "we" are good and "they" are for one reason or another lacking that goodness we take for granted? There seems to be two different yard sticks to judge people, one for "us" and anther for "them".
Every time George Bush commits a crime in Iraq, we Americans don't go in the streets to protest it. At times even majority of people support the war claiming it would bring gift of democracy and respect to human right, and Western values to the inferior people. Every nonsense movie that comes out of Hollywood we don't feel the responsibility to be in the street to defend the Muslim characters. At the same time we expect the Muslims to be on the street to oppose the radicals in case of the cartoon incident, or protest Syrian TV shows.
For a mainstream Muslim looking at both side of the issue, what is more ironic is that these radicals for most part behave quite Western, they seems to have learned their lessons quite well, true they do their “Shock and Awe” with rudimentary and inferior tools. But nonetheless the radicals and Westerners believe that violence would bring about the desired political change.
For Editor of the Die Welt every Muslim has to prove himself. As in after 9/11 every Muslim are somehow guilty of the act of handful of people and it is his responsibility to be proactive and clear his reputation. Otherwise it is another indication of their violent nature, and vindication for our own peaceful and civilized gene! Ironically this is just like the Muslim radicals that expect every Danish, or German citizen to prove themselves because of action of few cartoonist. It is for instance expected for the radicals to know that Danish people are for most part tolerant people.
In Western mind set though, hypocrisy has become a family value. For the editor of the Die Welt , without any real data to back up his claim, it is perfectly understandable to justify his action by stereotyping all Muslims, or at least their “imams”, as essentially antisemitic. Even though Muslims have gone to great length to separate religion of Judaism from political ambitions of Zionism in their conflict with Israeli.
In 1945 the Berlin's Die Welt editor would not have seen Jewish Rabbis as individuals, in 2006 it has difficulty realizing that Muslim Imams, just as individual Muslims, each have their own opinions. One can only hope come 2046 we can put these cartoons and editorials in Museums and try to learn about our own faults by communicating with others instead of trying to explain our own prejudices because of our perceived faults of others.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
It just doesn't get any funnier than this....
You got to love the Iranian sense of humor. CARTOON CRISIS: IRAN RENAMES DANISH PASTRIES
The War President
The Newsweeks' Devoted and Defiant starts out with this paragraph:
Born to a blacksmith, educated as a revolutionary, trained as a killer and derided by rivals as a mystical fanatic, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is easily cast as the personification of everything there is to fear about a nuclear Iran. But he may be worse than that—not because of how he looks to the outside world, but because of what he represents inside his country. Ahmadinejad plays to a nostalgia for war among parts of Iran's leadership, and even some of its young people: a longing for confrontation, a belief that a quarter century ago, when revolutionary Iran was ready to challenge the world, send countless youths to martyrdom in the fight against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, endure missile attacks on its cities, suffer poison-gas attacks against its troops—in those days the regime of the ayatollahs was purer, more noble, more popular and ultimately more secure.
It goes on to say:
Since he took office in August, Ahmadinejad has shown himself an expert at provoking outrage,...
The authors of the article are no small time experts at "provoking outrage". Ahmadinejad was member of the Revolutionary Guards Corps that found the Saddam's army. The Corp would be equivalent to the US Marines force. Could it be that the authors are trying to provoke outrage by calling one's military career as "trained as a killer".
The authors also say he "plays to a nostalgia for war" as it make the government "more popular and ultimately more secure". That sounds like a chapter out of Karl Rove and George W's play book. What was the name for it? "The War President?"
Born to a blacksmith, educated as a revolutionary, trained as a killer and derided by rivals as a mystical fanatic, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is easily cast as the personification of everything there is to fear about a nuclear Iran. But he may be worse than that—not because of how he looks to the outside world, but because of what he represents inside his country. Ahmadinejad plays to a nostalgia for war among parts of Iran's leadership, and even some of its young people: a longing for confrontation, a belief that a quarter century ago, when revolutionary Iran was ready to challenge the world, send countless youths to martyrdom in the fight against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, endure missile attacks on its cities, suffer poison-gas attacks against its troops—in those days the regime of the ayatollahs was purer, more noble, more popular and ultimately more secure.
It goes on to say:
Since he took office in August, Ahmadinejad has shown himself an expert at provoking outrage,...
The authors of the article are no small time experts at "provoking outrage". Ahmadinejad was member of the Revolutionary Guards Corps that found the Saddam's army. The Corp would be equivalent to the US Marines force. Could it be that the authors are trying to provoke outrage by calling one's military career as "trained as a killer".
The authors also say he "plays to a nostalgia for war" as it make the government "more popular and ultimately more secure". That sounds like a chapter out of Karl Rove and George W's play book. What was the name for it? "The War President?"
Sunday, February 05, 2006
How one never sees itself
Senator McCain says: Iran "defines itself by hostility to the United States and Israel".
How should one define Senator McCain when he says:
Russia had punished "democratic" Ukraine and Georgia by disrupting energy supplies "while providing cut-rate gas to the dictatorship in Minsk".
I don't get it, on what basis does the US Senator makes comments on trade relationships between Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, and Belarus?
"It (Russia) continues to prosecute a brutal war in Chechnya
that has killed as many as 200,000, radicalizing the Muslim
population, and it actively supports dictatorships in Central Asia."
Interestingly, these same dictatorships in Central Asia US ally and/or are destination of choice for CIA prisoners! US Recruits a Rough Ally to Be a Jailer
I wonder if Senator cares to talk about radicalization of the Muslim population for the Iraq war that the Senator so enthusiastically supports! Here is what it has done in Turkey, a traditional US ally! In Turkish Movie, Americans Kill Innocents
How should one define Senator McCain when he says:
Russia had punished "democratic" Ukraine and Georgia by disrupting energy supplies "while providing cut-rate gas to the dictatorship in Minsk".
I don't get it, on what basis does the US Senator makes comments on trade relationships between Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, and Belarus?
"It (Russia) continues to prosecute a brutal war in Chechnya
that has killed as many as 200,000, radicalizing the Muslim
population, and it actively supports dictatorships in Central Asia."
Interestingly, these same dictatorships in Central Asia US ally and/or are destination of choice for CIA prisoners! US Recruits a Rough Ally to Be a Jailer
I wonder if Senator cares to talk about radicalization of the Muslim population for the Iraq war that the Senator so enthusiastically supports! Here is what it has done in Turkey, a traditional US ally! In Turkish Movie, Americans Kill Innocents
Saturday, February 04, 2006
IAEA resolution as I see it.
The International Atomic Energy Agency's resolution on Iran among other items says:
Underlines that outstanding questions can best be resolved and confidence built in the
exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's programme by Iran responding positively to the calls for
confidence building measures which the Board has made on Iran, and in this context deems it
necessary for Iran to:
• re-establish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing
activities, including research and development, to be verified by the Agency;
• reconsider the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water;
• ratify promptly and implement in full the Additional Protocol;
• pending ratification, continue to act in accordance with the provisions of the Additional
Protocol which Iran signed on 18 December 2003;
• implement transparency measures, as requested by the Director General, including in
GOV/2005/67, which extend beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement
and Additional Protocol, and include such access to individuals, documentation relating to procurement, dual use equipment, certain military-owned workshops and research and
development as the Agency may request in support of its ongoing investigations;
So IAEA defines the "Additional Protocol", Iran accepts it (meaning it would implement its terms, but wont officially ratify it unless the whole issue is resolved) and implemented its requirements for three years. It says:
Recalling that in reports referred to above, the Director General noted that after nearly
three years of intensive verification activity, the Agency is not yet in a position to clarify some
important issues relating to Iran's nuclear programme or to conclude that there are no
undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran,
After three years IAEA says Iran may (or may not) have nuclear weapons program. Now if after three years it can't say definitively one way or another, what is the point of the protocol? It seems to me the issue here is IAEA much more so that Iran, it can't define a process to have a firm conclusion one way or another.
The last items is replay of run up to Iraq war..."implement transparency measures..." . IAEA came up with the additional protocol, which some countries have signed, what does it mean to ask for additional measures that extend beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol. Wouldn't after this there be yet more additional measures, that would extend the already additional measures that extended beyond the formal requirements of the Additional Protocol? Is this about doubling the requirements each time?
These items are rather interesting too:
(j) Recalling that in November 2005 the Director General reported (GOV/2005/87) that Iran possesses a document related to the procedural requirements for the reduction of UF6 to metalin small quantities, and on the casting and machining of enriched, natural and depleted uranium metal into hemispherical forms,
and,
Expresses serious concern that the Agency is not yet in a position to clarify some important issues relating to Iran's nuclear programme, including the fact that Iran has in its possession a document on the production of uranium metal hemispheres, since, as reported by the Secretariat, this process is related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components; and, noting that the decision to put this document under Agency seal is a positive step, requests Iran to maintain this document under Agency seal and to provide a full copy to the Agency;
So what? Let say Iran even has all the diagrams to make nuclear weapons. What does that mean? Can you be found guilty of a crime if you have a picture of a gun? Are there factual evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapons or not? IAEA board also wants a copy of this document; does this mean that from that day on every member of the IAEA that has seen the document now is making nuclear weapons?
Fortunately (or may be unfortunately :) )no one listens to me, but if I had anything to say on this I would have advises the Iranian government to open source ALL documents relating to their program, and let the world see it and judge by themselves.
What I see here is politics and bullying without real substance. This reminds me of the run up to Iraq war. I think the biggest casualties of the Iraq war were the:
1. reputation of US and UK,
2. UN Security Council
3. and the Media.
You can see the result of media's one sided approach to the run up to the war, the journalist are seen as party to the war and occupation and they being targeted. Almost every journalist that comes back for Iraq says that this is the first conflict that insurgency doesn't protect them or care to talk to them.
The deception campaign prior to the Iraq war, without a doubt, has ruined the reputation of US/UK and has shown the in-effectiveness of the UN Security Council to bring security to the world.
IAEA agency, for most part, kept its reputation. But the more I look at this resolution I see that this agency is being used more and more as political tool rather than its true intention, to stop proliferation of the nuclear weapons. Truly scary prospect.
Underlines that outstanding questions can best be resolved and confidence built in the
exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's programme by Iran responding positively to the calls for
confidence building measures which the Board has made on Iran, and in this context deems it
necessary for Iran to:
• re-establish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing
activities, including research and development, to be verified by the Agency;
• reconsider the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water;
• ratify promptly and implement in full the Additional Protocol;
• pending ratification, continue to act in accordance with the provisions of the Additional
Protocol which Iran signed on 18 December 2003;
• implement transparency measures, as requested by the Director General, including in
GOV/2005/67, which extend beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement
and Additional Protocol, and include such access to individuals, documentation relating to procurement, dual use equipment, certain military-owned workshops and research and
development as the Agency may request in support of its ongoing investigations;
So IAEA defines the "Additional Protocol", Iran accepts it (meaning it would implement its terms, but wont officially ratify it unless the whole issue is resolved) and implemented its requirements for three years. It says:
Recalling that in reports referred to above, the Director General noted that after nearly
three years of intensive verification activity, the Agency is not yet in a position to clarify some
important issues relating to Iran's nuclear programme or to conclude that there are no
undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran,
After three years IAEA says Iran may (or may not) have nuclear weapons program. Now if after three years it can't say definitively one way or another, what is the point of the protocol? It seems to me the issue here is IAEA much more so that Iran, it can't define a process to have a firm conclusion one way or another.
The last items is replay of run up to Iraq war..."implement transparency measures..." . IAEA came up with the additional protocol, which some countries have signed, what does it mean to ask for additional measures that extend beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol. Wouldn't after this there be yet more additional measures, that would extend the already additional measures that extended beyond the formal requirements of the Additional Protocol? Is this about doubling the requirements each time?
These items are rather interesting too:
(j) Recalling that in November 2005 the Director General reported (GOV/2005/87) that Iran possesses a document related to the procedural requirements for the reduction of UF6 to metalin small quantities, and on the casting and machining of enriched, natural and depleted uranium metal into hemispherical forms,
and,
Expresses serious concern that the Agency is not yet in a position to clarify some important issues relating to Iran's nuclear programme, including the fact that Iran has in its possession a document on the production of uranium metal hemispheres, since, as reported by the Secretariat, this process is related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components; and, noting that the decision to put this document under Agency seal is a positive step, requests Iran to maintain this document under Agency seal and to provide a full copy to the Agency;
So what? Let say Iran even has all the diagrams to make nuclear weapons. What does that mean? Can you be found guilty of a crime if you have a picture of a gun? Are there factual evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapons or not? IAEA board also wants a copy of this document; does this mean that from that day on every member of the IAEA that has seen the document now is making nuclear weapons?
Fortunately (or may be unfortunately :) )no one listens to me, but if I had anything to say on this I would have advises the Iranian government to open source ALL documents relating to their program, and let the world see it and judge by themselves.
What I see here is politics and bullying without real substance. This reminds me of the run up to Iraq war. I think the biggest casualties of the Iraq war were the:
1. reputation of US and UK,
2. UN Security Council
3. and the Media.
You can see the result of media's one sided approach to the run up to the war, the journalist are seen as party to the war and occupation and they being targeted. Almost every journalist that comes back for Iraq says that this is the first conflict that insurgency doesn't protect them or care to talk to them.
The deception campaign prior to the Iraq war, without a doubt, has ruined the reputation of US/UK and has shown the in-effectiveness of the UN Security Council to bring security to the world.
IAEA agency, for most part, kept its reputation. But the more I look at this resolution I see that this agency is being used more and more as political tool rather than its true intention, to stop proliferation of the nuclear weapons. Truly scary prospect.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Settlers?
Jewish settlers and their supporters clash with Israeli troops and police, as authorities evacuated the West Bank settlement outpost of Amona, east of the Palestinian town of Ramallah, Wednesday Feb. 1, 2006. Thousands of troops in riot gear and on horseback clashed with hundreds of stone-throwing Jewish settlers holed up behind barbed wire and on rooftops in this illegal West Bank settlement outpost Wednesday, after the Supreme Court cleared the way for the demolition of nine homes at the site.(AP Photo/Baz Ratner)
Israeli policemen clash with Jewish settlers in the unauthorized outpost of Amona, close to the West Bank Jewish settlement of Ofra, February 1, 2006. (Oleg Popov/Reuters)
Why are these people called "settlers"? Isn't Colonizer, Bandits, Robbers.... a more appropriate name?
What does "unauthorized outpost" mean? Who authorizes the authorized outposts?
threat to end the threats
This is an interesting article
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw's threats ("advice") Iran against threatening! Sort of like mother of all threats (or advices?)
It reminds me of the George Bush (or for that matter any American President) we "don't take the military option off the table". It has to do with some cultural values. In some cultures it is bad manner to put your shoes (or foot for that matter) on the table. In US it seems putting the military option off the table is bad manner.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw's threats ("advice") Iran against threatening! Sort of like mother of all threats (or advices?)
It reminds me of the George Bush (or for that matter any American President) we "don't take the military option off the table". It has to do with some cultural values. In some cultures it is bad manner to put your shoes (or foot for that matter) on the table. In US it seems putting the military option off the table is bad manner.
"dogma has no place in a secular society"?
I like this. Paper reprints Islam row cartoons.
Lets express our views using cartoon. It sure beats Political Violence (war, terrorism). The French Soir says: "Yes, We Have the Right to Caricature God".
But let also be honest, Others can draw cartoons. Would the papers print them? Do they have right to for example question and caricature Holocaust? If we say "religious dogma has no place in a secular society", are we ready to say dogma has no place in secular society?
Lets express our views using cartoon. It sure beats Political Violence (war, terrorism). The French Soir says: "Yes, We Have the Right to Caricature God".
But let also be honest, Others can draw cartoons. Would the papers print them? Do they have right to for example question and caricature Holocaust? If we say "religious dogma has no place in a secular society", are we ready to say dogma has no place in secular society?
Trying to make sense of the speech
From
President Geroge W Bush's 2006 State of Union Speech
In one part of the speech the President said:
....The Palestinian people have voted in elections. And now the leaders of Hamas must recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace. (Applause.)...
He also said:
Tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran. (Applause.)
The question is this...Does President Bush practice what he preaches? Is he willing to show leadership and lead by example? Meaning:
...And now the leader of Free world must recognize Iranian rights, end all sanctions, reject war (take military option off the table) and work for lasting peace through trade and cooperation? (Applause ?)
At the end of the speech he said:
Fellow citizens, we've been called to leadership in a period of consequence. We've entered a great ideological conflict we did nothing to invite. We see great changes in science and commerce that will influence all our lives. Sometimes it can seem that history is turning in a wide arc, toward an unknown shore. Yet the destination of history is determined by human action, and every great movement of history comes to a point of choosing.
This is very confusing. If "the destination of history is determined by human action, and every great movement of history comes to a point of choosing", then how can you say that "We've entered a great ideological conflict we did nothing to invite." It would seem to me that you would need to conclude that the our choices in previous "great movements of history" caused current "idealogical conflicts."
Did I miss something here?
President Geroge W Bush's 2006 State of Union Speech
In one part of the speech the President said:
....The Palestinian people have voted in elections. And now the leaders of Hamas must recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace. (Applause.)...
He also said:
Tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran. (Applause.)
The question is this...Does President Bush practice what he preaches? Is he willing to show leadership and lead by example? Meaning:
...And now the leader of Free world must recognize Iranian rights, end all sanctions, reject war (take military option off the table) and work for lasting peace through trade and cooperation? (Applause ?)
At the end of the speech he said:
Fellow citizens, we've been called to leadership in a period of consequence. We've entered a great ideological conflict we did nothing to invite. We see great changes in science and commerce that will influence all our lives. Sometimes it can seem that history is turning in a wide arc, toward an unknown shore. Yet the destination of history is determined by human action, and every great movement of history comes to a point of choosing.
This is very confusing. If "the destination of history is determined by human action, and every great movement of history comes to a point of choosing", then how can you say that "We've entered a great ideological conflict we did nothing to invite." It would seem to me that you would need to conclude that the our choices in previous "great movements of history" caused current "idealogical conflicts."
Did I miss something here?
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Art of Elections
Interesting article "U.S. will push efforts to isolate Hamas, Rice says"
.....
Rice said the landslide had taken many, including Hamas, by surprise, but she also said it was prompting an internal review of sorts within the administration.
''I have asked why nobody saw it coming,'' she said. ''And I hope that we will take a hard look, because it does say something about perhaps not having had a good enough pulse on the Palestinian population, as opposed to elites in Ramallah and the like.''
Basically, had we known we would have lose (that is losing our corrupt friends), we would not have pushed for election. At some point someone can summarize all of these into Art of Election. This rule sounds very similar to a point in Art of War, By Sun Tzu
15. Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist
only seeks battle after the victory has been won,
whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights
and afterwards looks for victory.
She goes on to say:
''When that happens, it's the responsibility and the role of - particularly the United States, but the international community more broadly - to stay very firmly planted in principle,'' she said. She also said the United States needed to ''make certain that everything that you are doing relates to that set of principles, so that you don't start flagging one way and another.''
It is more like two set of principals, one for "us" and one for "them".
.....
Rice said the landslide had taken many, including Hamas, by surprise, but she also said it was prompting an internal review of sorts within the administration.
''I have asked why nobody saw it coming,'' she said. ''And I hope that we will take a hard look, because it does say something about perhaps not having had a good enough pulse on the Palestinian population, as opposed to elites in Ramallah and the like.''
Basically, had we known we would have lose (that is losing our corrupt friends), we would not have pushed for election. At some point someone can summarize all of these into Art of Election. This rule sounds very similar to a point in Art of War, By Sun Tzu
15. Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist
only seeks battle after the victory has been won,
whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights
and afterwards looks for victory.
She goes on to say:
''When that happens, it's the responsibility and the role of - particularly the United States, but the international community more broadly - to stay very firmly planted in principle,'' she said. She also said the United States needed to ''make certain that everything that you are doing relates to that set of principles, so that you don't start flagging one way and another.''
It is more like two set of principals, one for "us" and one for "them".
An intersting prespective....
Israel/US says Hamas must recognize Israel's right to exsit before any negotiation.
Hamas: "If Israel is ready to tell the people what is the official border, after that we are going to answer this question."
Full report: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/29/hamas.interview/index.html
Hamas: "If Israel is ready to tell the people what is the official border, after that we are going to answer this question."
Full report: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/29/hamas.interview/index.html
Pop Quiz
this is a pop quiz to see if anyone is paying attention.
Instruction: Read the question, try to formulate your answer, then try to see if this matches the "correct" answer.
Q: After victory of Hamas in Palestinian election, what would be the most effective way for US and Europeans powers to radicalize the middle east?
Answer
Instruction: Read the question, try to formulate your answer, then try to see if this matches the "correct" answer.
Q: After victory of Hamas in Palestinian election, what would be the most effective way for US and Europeans powers to radicalize the middle east?
Answer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
