Two car bombs exploded in Baghdad today, killing at least 136 and wounding more than 520, according to news accounts: Al Jazeera, New York Times, CNN, WaPo. So far on this Sunday morning, American cable news networks aren't talking about it much, so why don't we do so here, in the comments. [Image: AFP]
Iraq: Open Thread, "Bloody Sunday"
Two car bombs exploded in Baghdad today, killing at least 136 and wounding more than 520, according to news accounts: Al Jazeera, New York Times, CNN, WaPo. So far on this Sunday morning, American cable news networks aren't talking about it much, so why don't we do so here, in the comments. [Image: AFP]
Leave a comment
More items
Musicians call for release of torture soundtrack details
We've posted many times about the use of music in Psy Ops for torture and as a form of "acoustic bombardment" (annoyance) in siege situations like Waco and when Noriega holed up in Panama. Now, famous artists like Pearl Jam, REM, Rosanne Cash, and the Roots filed a Freedom of Information Act demandi... More.
Another Hardcore Moment from Nature
This is a kea. Isn't he cute? Happy, little green parrot...tra la la. This little parrot will mess your s**t up. If you are a sheep. Image courtesy Flickr user PhillipC, via CC. Happy, little green parrot who calmly burrows through the still-living flesh of sheep and dines upon their kidney fat w... More.
German arm wrestler Matthias Schlitte has a gigantic right arm
Superpunch has several photos and videos of champion arm wrestler Matthias Schlitte. If you look closely, his right arm appears to be larger than his left arm.... More.
Futuristic workspace looks like a dinosaur egg
Do you like to block the world out completely when you're working at your desk? Copenhagen-based design team GamFratesi has created a prototype for a sleek, dinosaur egg-like work environment that they call Rewrite. It reminds me of those cubicles they had at my grad school library, except they're... More.
Green Pink Caviar: Marilyn Minter
Susannah Breslin pointed me to Marilyn Minter 's latest video months ago, but I didn't get around to blogging 'til now. Green Pink Caviar is described as A lush and sensual voyeuristic hallucination. Filmed with macro lenses, the video was inspired by a photo shoot where Minter directed her m... More.
Mark Frauenfelder, Cory Doctorow
David Pescovitz and Xeni Jardin
Editors
Rob Beschizza
Managing Editor
Lisa Katayama, Maggie Koerth-Baker
and Brandon Boyer
Contributing Editors
Sysadmin
Lead Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Finance
Legal
Legal
Insurance
Developer
Friend
Ken Snider
Antinous
Arkizzle
Avram
Terry Thurlow
Rob Rader/MS&K
Marc Mayer/MS&K
Ed Szylko/EJMS
Dean Putney
Jason Weisberger
John Battelle
Partner
Federated Media
Advertising
RSS Feed
Nassim Nicholas Taleb, in his book dealing with Black Swan Events also raises the subject of 'information toxicity.' I think he means that we are bombarded by public media to the point were we no longer can make any real sense of an actual event because of scale. In the background clutter of media, anything of personal relevance is lost.
He argues that in his own experience, even when he was reading 2-3 newspapers a day, his actual knowledge of events that were important to him were no more salient than now when he claims to read none at all.
I'm sure that the story would be covered verbatim and without question if it was mentioned in a press release by lobby groups such as the US Chamber of Commerce, the pentagon, or any given fortune 500 corporation.
Thank you Xeni for giving a forum for actual people to react to this tragedy caused by american tax dollars.
Adam Curtis's work on how the media's shift from daily to rolling 24 hour news was also interesting, and was rehashed in Charlie Brooker's Newswipe series. Sadly, it seems that these horrific car bombings come under the heading of "it happened to different coloured people somewhere foreign", so you might not see as much on this story as should be expected.
its classic media fatigue. most of the american public doesn't care anymore, they have adapted to perpetual war as a part of life.
@2: There are lots of things the United States has done wrong in Iraq, but this atrocity wasn't one of them: the United States didn't make someone deliberately car bomb a government building, sorry.
Western news media srsly needs to go in a more Al Jazeera angle and get a lot more graphic with pictures of the aftermath of this stuff. That iranian girl got a bunch of news untill jacko bought it cuz you gotta put a sexy dead human face on a disaster before anyone gives a shit.,
For the best "face time" with tragedy consumers, you want the tragedy to hit during AM drive on a Wednesday so that people here about it during their commute, follow up online during their lunch break, then catch prime time when they get home. Sunday is the worst day to debut a new tragedy. People tune out of life on Sunday - they're going to church, eating a late lunch, watching bad movies on cable, and / or sleeping off hangovers.
It's notable that the bombings were widely covered by internet news sources, and seemingly ignored by the entertainment and indoctrination "news" outlets that are passively watched. I'm guessing the demographic breakdown of those who get their news from the internet and those who get it from broadcast TV news would make interesting reading. Kill your television.
Slightly off topic, I see those religiously given morals are being applied for the betterment of mankind once again.
I know that BB has a great, intelligent, skeptical humanist kind of audience, but the cynicism prevailing in this thread is breathtaking. Is it just a defense mechanism? This news is tragic, awful stuff, the detail of real human misery. Even if the wider American media has yet to present this, we know about it, and it's terrible. What about a little sympathy and mourning for the Iraqi people?
Well, we continue the primary tactic of the "successful" surge and continue to pump/bribe the key players in Iraq to hold off a little longer on their civil war. It "worked" under the current and former administrations, why wouldn't work now that we've somewhat withdrawn? It's just tax payer money that we could use for health care or education for our nation, or bribery money to temporarily prop up a truce in the nation we've tried to rebuild after destroying it.
Robert
this will probably get deleted, but i can't resist asking all of you. what makes this particular incidence so special, people die there all the time and have been doing so for years.
yes its all very sad and terrible, but you can't seriously expect television viewers on the other side of the world to stay interested forever. it really makes no difference whether you get punched in the face or eat a moist chocolate cake once a day, you will get bored and start feeling totally indifferent after a while.
besides why should we focus on iraq when there are plenty of other horrors to choose from at any given moment?
Can I ask the unpopular question: "Why should we care?"
These are people who would dance in the street if there was a terrorist attack on a Western nation. You reap what you sow. While I wish no one any ill will, do I really care?
"Why should we care?"
So we don't end up like you ,Mr Shnide.
Americans don't give a shit about any of the wars they are involved in because they don't occur on American soil. They don't even realize that they are at war. And I dare to say most of us who were opposed to the whole clusterfuck from the start (myself included) would probably be happy to put it out of side and out of mind.... which is easy when the battleground isn't even on the same continent.
Yes, I realize that that statement is only one facet of the entire problem but I also think it is the largest.
Because its our fault these people are dead.These peoples blood is on our hands and not caring is all the licence the imperialists WE elected need to stay the course.
Yeah... let's not get into this whole "reap what you sow" stuff. We did invade a country that never attacked us, and had no means to do so.
I saw a bumper sticker that said "Bomb Iran. Kick their ass. Take their gas." We have plenty of people in this country who are gleeful when bad things happens to others.
Because it goes against the idea and belief that there is any change occurring.
Yes, we can ignore Obama's wars.
Will there ever be safety and stability in that country? Why doesn't the opposition stage a peaceful protest instead of killing innocent people? Sad and scary news.
Oceania has always been at war with East Asia...
1984 should not be a guidebook about media and government but it seems to be.
We have an artificial sense of urgency where what happens to some random hollywood ditz is more important than war where our and their children are dying.
Terrible things happen every day, yes. Terrible things happen in Iraq on a regular basis, yes. We all have our own lives, yes. But fuck, people, sometimes it's worth a little attention to the actual goings on in other parts of the world, and a little less attention to how they're perceived by others in our society.
This is sad that it happened, but it brought out some good.
“The perpetrators of this have revealed publicly that they are targeting the state and its basic pillars,” Mr. Talibani said. “They want to hinder the political process or to stop it and to sabotage what we have built during six years with great sacrifice.”
If the Iraqi government is so much of a threat to the Baathists and the Mesopotamian Al Qaeda, that's probably a good sign that some forward progress toward stability is being made. Peace doesn't come overnight, but if the militants chose Iraqi targets instead of American ones, it's a telling sign that something is changing.
I barely think of televised news as news anymore. Most of it is taken up by sensationalists yelling at each other. I prefer to read the news online rather than have it spat at me.
The sight/sound of a news anchor clearly faking pity and shock is more deplorable to me than if they were to stay quiet.
I feel that the people who would actually care about a story like this are the ones who are already reading about it online. Kudos to you guys for exposing it to a slightly different audience (although I'm sure many people who read BoingBoing are also those who read the news)
Yes, the US allowed Bush and company to lie and manipulate public opinion to get support for the war in Iraq, and yes, it was wrong on almost every level. It seems clear that the invasion was ill conceived from the start, and that Saddams control of large amounts of oil was the real casus belli. That removing the boot that was on the necks of the Shiite faction in Iraq lead to near civil war there is unarguable.
While it is true that this incident would likely not have occurred if the US had not invaded Iraq and ousted Saddam, only a fool would argue that other violence would not have been taking place in that brutally repressive regime. But of course, that violence wouldn't have made the news at all, so I guess that makes it more acceptable.
At this point, the Iraqis are rarely attacking our troops as invaders, they are attacking each other as heretics. The hatreds that led to this and myriad other attacks predate our arrival there, and will doubtless continue after our departure. We are responsible for this attack only in the sense that we ended the murderous Sunni domination of the Shia in Iraq and did not have some effective means of preventing sectarian violence in place when we did. If you really want to place blame, put it on the fine religious upbringings of the locals.
For those who ask why we should care about violence halfway around the world...how do you get to a place where the determining factor in your compassion is proximity? Murderous sectarian violence doesn't matter if it is more than 5,000 miles away? Would you care if it happened in London or Rome? After all, they are pretty far away too. Perhaps people in California were needlessly maudlin about 9/11, since New York is quite a hike. Or is it because it is "those people"? Because, after all, they aren't like us? They dress funny and ululate, and therefore are clearly not worthy of our notice, compassion, or grief. Right?
I must say, this Victory in Iraq seems to be going rather well.
I recently watched a documentary about biker wars in the US, Outlaws vs. Hells Angels. According to this and my memory there have been only three, yes, three major car bombs in the US; Oklahoma, World Trade Center and one caused by the Outlaws. Three car bombings. Iran, Iraq, Israel, Palestine...car bombs, what, every week or so? I'm getting to the point where I honestly don't give a damn. Car bombs in those countries are like gang shootings here. Shit happens. I agree with some earlier posts that if we want people to pay attention then we should show the true aftermath, not some guy weeping over a blood tinted puddle or the typical shot of a burqua-clad wailing woman. Has anyone seen a picture of what's left of a suicide bomber? Or the victims? The one I saw showed the top half of the bomber with his face resting on his guts. They are going to blow each other up whether US armed forces are there or not. I'm not worried about "them" because I am worried about here: meth addicts stealing everything that is and is not bolted down, the afore mentioned gang violence, teenage thugs trying to prove their mettle, and me just trying to make enough money to survive without getting another foodbox.
Most North Koreans are unaware of the moon landings.
I think we really need to differentiate true Islamic belief and practice (including jihad) from suicide bombings that kill and maim scores of non-combatant men, women and children. My understanding is that suicide is expressly forbidden in the Islamic faith, as is the harming of individuals not directly engaging in warfare. Why does it seem, from the perspective of a Westerner surface feeding off mostly mainstream news sources, that there is no Islamic religious authority successfully arguing against the violence against civilians in this ongoing stream of suicide bombings? It may be religious indoctrination largely to blame for the bombings, but don't the bombings spring from a faulty theological premise? (i.e. blow yourself up for holy war= go to heaven.) According to Islam, that's not true, right? So how is it the suicide bombers repeatedly fail to get that memo???
I think that fighting "religious extremism" needs to happen from within the native cultural/religious framework, not outside of it. I don't think efforts to curb religious belief will ever be successful (put me in the religion is hardwired camp.) But I don't understand why Islamic scholars and leaders have not been more successful in communicating the true tenets of their faith to the radical, murderous fringe.
Who gives a crap... no, really!!! More people then that are killed by rival gangs on any given week in the USA so why is this such a big deal??? or are you saying "OMG we need to fix this"??? they have been killing each other over there for how many thousands of years????
I really don't think anyone or any government can "fix" what is wrong with the middle east... they are gangs killing gangs and outsiders get hurt... did anyone step in to help us with our gangs?
war war war... there is war on drugs and we still have drugs... war on crime and we still have crime.. war on poverty... war on tooth decay... war on everything else you can think of... so why does one more war make a difference to me ( a typical american) it all has no meaning anymore and your asking me to care? Well I don't... I only care about myself because I can not alone carry the whole weight of the world... let them carry their own weight...
cause they are over here, this Sun morn, bragging about how everything worked great in Iraq. It shouldn't surprise anyone with valid critical thinking skills.
most of the North America, dis-engaged, educationally disadvantaged folks, don't even remember Iraq.
pitiful and disgraceful and shameful: the memory spans or lack there-of in this country.
"Why should we care?"
Because it happened, and people lost their lives, and if we're aware of tragic events people can make attempts to keep a record, and maybe we can eventually learn something from it. It sounds obvious when I type it.
Blaming the victims and minimizing the massacre is curiously defensive and a strange reaction to people getting blown up in an American warzone. 'Why does it bother you that it's brought up?' is a better question, imho.
I don't think anyone is asking cynical Americans to send all their spare pennies to the victims of the bombing, but merely expressing sympathy is probably better than letting everyone know how little you care about them. If you don't care, why post at all?
I only care about myself because I can not alone carry the whole weight of the world
The world is not black and white. It's not even grayscale.
Monster or Martyr are not the only choices. If you think about it, I'm sure you can come up with at least one more option than not caring or carrying the whole weight of the world.
As an American, white, middle aged, and employed, I'm going to exercise my right to interpret the news so that it becomes salient to my interests. Reality be damned.
Sunday Bloody Sunday
1 bottle (Cold) Beer
2 dashes Salt
6 dashes Tabasco Sauce
4 oz (Cold) Vegetable Juice
1 dash Cayenne Pepper
Directions
Most specifically I prefer to use Regular V8 or store brand equivalent and Miller Chill as I find it gives the best flavor when mixed. Use no more than 4 ice cubes as both the juice and beer should be ice cold. Pour the juice first add in seasonings and Tabasco.Ppour beer in large glass over top then sink in ice if needed and stir
When people stop caring that 136 innocent men, woman and children were torn to bits in a public street, we've reached the point where we need a moral re-boot. I'm certain that people who can blow violence off with a few keystrokes haven't seen too much real life violence themselves. This isn't Doom people.
Thanks to the interweb and 24 hour news we are bombarded on a hourly basis. From starving people in Africa to police run amok in Texas to bombs blowing people to bits in Iraq how are we to feel when we are numb from over exposure to violence and cruelty?
Danlalan sez'd "the US allowed Bush and company to lie and manipulate public opinion to get support for the war in Iraq, and yes, it was wrong on almost every level."
Speaking as a citizen of the USA, I was never asked for my input on Bush's actions. I never voted for him. America is not a representative Democracy, we're a Republic that has been leaning toward Dictatorship for the past 20 years and neither I nor any other US citizen has ever been asked for our opinion or input on the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, or any other Bush-era garbage.
But I'm not mad at ya danlalan, I have a feeling you didn't mean ALL of us Americans allowed Bush to crap all over the Earth, I agree with miost of what you say. I'm just arguing w/your choice of words for that sentence and then using them to build my soapbox :)
For what its worth, no one has a convincing explanation for why the USA immediately went for Afghanistan after the 9/11 attack. Why Afghanistan? Why Iraq after that? How could we ever declare VICTORY in Afghanistan or Iraq when our objective was never really clear from the beginning?
Although the scripture may seem against it most philosophy is interpreted. It may be that what we call suicide bombing is recast as martyrdom and is reluctantly accepted.
Religions are adjusted by the values of the societies that practice them. If the majority of the religious leaders in the area were staunchly against such attacks they would be more rare.
If you have examples of mainstream clerics in Iraq successfully arguing against car bombings you should post them, As much as the media likes to think of Islam with a capitol "I" it is much more diverse.
Reading the details over this seems to be politically motivated. Whom ever did this was try to undermine the people confidence that a democratically elected government can protect them.
Although brutal Sadams time as president was 'peaceful'. A few (dozen) more explosions like this and people will give their support to anyone who can stop the violence no matter what the cost.
This is the true face or terrorism. Killing and maiming innocents get your political agenda across.
Yeah, wow, you have no idea. Reap what you sow indeed...
I remember a quote from some documentary somewhere: "America has a collective attention span of 5 minutes." Maybe Gore Vidal? Anyway, America (and Britain, especially) have their hands elbow-deep in the goings-on in the middle east, especially in Iraq and Iran.
We divided the area up, messily, and ensured internal conflict in doing so (after destroying the Ottoman Empire, FYI). We botched the handover of land after WW2, backstabbing the Jews and Arabs both, leaving them to duke it out. We overthrew the democratic Iranian government and installed the Shah to maintain access to oil, and then, when that backfired and they revolted (not opting to model their government after America this time, for some reason, choosing the theocratic route instead) we supported Saddam Hussein to counterbalance their power in the region. We encouraged the decade-long war between them, supplying arms to BOTH sides all the while (see: Iran Contra). You remember that quote, "We know Saddam has WoMD, we have the receipts"? Then there's the first Gulf War, and the second...
And now you turn around and say, "Why should we care about THEM? They've got nothing to do with US!"
Fuck.
You.
Okay, glass houses and all that, but I find it fascinating from the video clip that the reaction of the Iraqi Defense Forces to a car bomb is still to just start emptying their clips into the air. As if they were still nomads on horseback doing a show of force to intimidate the other side into fleeing first. Except in this case the only people you're intimidating are the emergency responders and the victims.
Well, misterjuju, I too am a US citizen who did not vote for Bush, but to abdicate all responsibility for the actions undertaken by our country is to cede the field to those who would do the things we do not agree with. You are correct, we are a representative democracy rather than a direct one, but that does not mean an individual has no voice here. If enough people actively support an idea, eventually it will find traction with the self-serving interests of politicians. As much as I may disagree with what the government does, and even if I voted for the other guys, because we act at least nominally through majority consensus and I do have some (small) ability to influence my fellow citizens I must share at least in some small way responsibility for what my government does.
You say you fear creeping authoritarianism? There is no surer way for it to gain power than for the opposition to give all responsibility and authority for the nations acts to the authoritarians. If you don't want it, they will be glad to take it.
Saying that "we" did it and "we" were wrong may be uncomfortable, but it makes influencing those who need influencing much easier than saying "you" did it and "you" were wrong. People listen to their friends more than to their enemies. Arguments don't change minds as well as discussions do. Nothing happens overnight. Don't give up. And don't despair.
As for why Afganistan?...Surely you remember that Bin Laden and company were there, and he and Al-qaeda claimed responsibility for 9/11? And that when the US demanded that Afganistan turn them over the Taliban refused? The objective WAS to kill or capture Bin Laden and destroy Al-qaeda, although as often happens we have had considerable mission creep.
I have to admit it's hard to process deeply - emotionally or intellectually - events like this when we've become so inured to a state of constant war half-way around the world. On the other hand, my stomach is in knots twice a day knowing my kids have to take buses to and from high school every day in Chicago. I guess what I'm saying is that my emotions and stresses are closer to home; quite local in fact. I want to cry every time I hear a teenager is shot to death in this wonderful and cursed city. It's not like I don't have empathy and sympathy for the Iraqis [or those in Darfur, or Gaza, or wherever] especially since this mess was created with my misappropriated tax dollars; it's just that even in a country of alleged peace and prosperity, I have very real issues at home to be concerned about. It's not like I can't see past my own backyard, it's just a question of how big my backyard should be. I hope that doesn't sound callous; no one should have to die violently at the hands of another EVER. Anywhere. Why are the impulses of humans so consistently ugly sometimes? I will never understand.
MisterJuJu,
Did you march in the streets? Did you write to your senators and representatives every day, demanding that your opinion on the war be taken seriously as a citizen of your country? Did you turn up to every event Bush was attending, with placards and war songs, determined to have your voice counted toward the final decision?
How loudly did you shout?
Or did you sit idly by, happy in your impotence, knowing that as a citizen of a Republic your opinion didn't count, keeping quiet even though you didn't agree with what was being done in your name?
I didn't vote for Bush either, in fact I'm not even from a country who sent troops to Iraq, but I marched to try and prevent the invasion, in both Ireland and the UK; attended protests and helped organise some gigs to raise awareness. And yet I still feel responsible; still feel a part of the mechanism that made it possible; still don't feel that I did enough to make it impossible for our collective governments to commit this crime.
And they didn't ask you your opinion. Jesus Christ.
And now you turn around and say, "Why should we care about THEM? They've got nothing to do with US!"
Fuck.
You.
Well. Put.
And I wonder, after having just finished Jane Mayer's article in this week's New Yorker, is there any moral distinction between an attack like this and a 'surgical' CIA drone strike that kills its target, plus 100 people who happen to be nearby?
We're well into a spiral of perpetual war, and Joe Blow just could not care less.
Conflict can be caused be scarcity of resource or even implied scarcity...
Over my Lipton (tm) now Knorr (tm) cup of noodles this afternoon I surfed the wiki for their page on 'Oil Reserve.' It led to a page on 'World Energy Resources and Consumption.' It has astronomy math so I'm posting them to see if anyone else can come up with a better interpretation of reality.
I like the phrase Kill Your Television. I'd recommend a ball peen hammer, wear safety glasses :)
Remember to say Hi to the NSA everyone. *waves*
JoshP, try this site:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/inter.html
It is the US DOE energy statistics page, and it has numbers about almost everything....and if you want to lose a little sleep, divide the current worldwide oil reserves by the current rate of use....40 years and its all gone (of course, they're still finding some new oil, so it probably won't all be gone in 40 years...maybe 60 or 70)
@arkizzle
Well, not EVERY day. Jeez. I know better than to open my fat mouth in this forum without something to back it up. There were pics of me on indymedia when they covered anti-war, anti-Bush, anti police brutality, etc protests in Houston, but I have a facemask on. I'm the cute redhead girl. As for writing to my senators and all that, its not for me. I'm more of a direct action fan.
@Arkizzle again..you got me all worked up, calling me out like that! I never meant imply that I can't make a difference because I'm just one person and the rest of fat lazy America would cancel out my efforts...
I screamed til I was hoarse. I recruited many people to scream with me. We painted signs, marched, yelled, got cars to honk at us.. But as Cindy Sheehan proved, even sitting on Bush's doorstep for months with a placard waving in his ugly monkey face did nothing but call media attention to her, and get her labeled as a nutcase. I know that efforts like hers are mostly useless but she keeps it up, and I keep it up too, going to protests, and writing the occasional letter. I've not given up! off topic. sorry.
So the people who haven't been exposed to too much violence write dismissive commments on the web. The people in Iraq who have been exposed to much violence go out and make car bombs.
I don't think the "See violence and hate it" connection is working exactly like you think it does.
everyone who didn't take the first chance they got to put a bullet in bush and cheneys brains is responsible. Its liike one of the founding principles of yer country
Now, now, let's put the blame where it belongs. It was the British who decided to shove all these disparate ethnic groups together in one big mess and declare it one country-- so let's blame the British as the ultimate root cause.
Yeah but thats not fair you can blame almost everything wrong with the world on the british with a little effort
:(
Equality works both ways. Your not going to get it if you don't give it. The sadest part of this is when locals have gotten used to this kind of treatment and fighting,Saddam's dead. All the wind-bag's need to blow it out their asses...let's do the math:
guns + bombs - food - human dignity = this.
No wonder they hate us, this is not a popularity contest, and yet it's continually treated as such. Sick.
@Arkizzle,
February and March 2003 saw some of the largest coordinated anti-war protests in world history. President Bush (enabled by a toothless Congress) responded to us with remarks about how they respect our right to protest and isn't it wonderful that we live in a country in which we can express our discontent, etc. He then proceeded to bomb the shit out of Iraq. Staying quiet does not seem an appropriate response to a terrible war, but at the same time neither does 1960s-style public protest; it may have been effective then, but it certainly isn't now. Members of congress are as unresponsive as the president and his staff (whether Obama or Bush).
We need a different approach and it doesn't involve writing your Congressmen a sternly-worded letter or shouting through a megaphone.
Whenever I see things like this I watch this video to put things into perspective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pfwY2TNehw
Maybe one day human beings will stop acting so silly toward each other.
Or you might have to acknowledge that you just simply don't have the power to get done what you think needs to get done. You're assuming success (to produce a peaceful world) is possible. It may well not be.
We need a different approach and it doesn't involve writing your Congressmen a sternly-worded letter or shouting through a megaphone.
I'm all ears
MisterJuJu,
"I've not given up!"
That's all that matters. I was only calling out your apparent distancing-of-personal-responsibility from civic matters, which is how your original post read.
My other point was, that even though we may not be personally responsible, we still are collectively, as shitty as that is to say. And I'm saying that as a citizen of a neutral country (one that scandalously enabled US forces by letting them fly through Shannon, en route to Iraq).
We could have done more; there lies responsibility.
Davidasposted,
What form will your New Resistance take?
Like many other posters here, my first impulse is to shield myself in cynicism. Talking about it was so much more meaningful before the invasion, when cooler heads might still have prevailed.
By my reckoning, I'm still paying for torture in the name of public safety... Suicide bombings are no stupider than that.
It sickens me that "white man's burden" still guides foreign policy. And the idea that live just isn't as valuable to those people who live on top of Our Oil... Connect the Dots, people!
These days, I wonder more and more if warfare would still be possible without organized bigotry.
You know why the yank media is hesitant to touch this subject? I think we all know.
And really, can you blame the people who do such things in Baghdad? If USA invaded my country I would not be typing text in the internet but fighting their invasion just like these bombers are.
Fighting the invasion by killing your own countrymen, as these folks did?
136 dead Iraqus, 500 or so wounded Iraqis, and perhaps three wounded US "security contractors".
Mad respect for johnny's comment. I second everything he had to say.
I find it hilarious how in the eyes of republican voters this is suddenly somehow Obama's failed war. Need you be reminded that everyone's favourite unsuccessful presidential candidate was adamant about being in Iraq for decades if required, despite that being against the wishes of the Iraqi government (and by extension the Iraqi People)?
Bush got the US into this. Obama inherited the headache. The mainstream media was complicit in the misinformation campaign that garnered widespread public support for the Iraq war (I'm looking at you here NYT) and then Bush just used WMDs as an excuse to settle his daddy's score.
For those saying 'who cares?' - you truly need the effect of fartle's suggestion: Western news media srsly needs to go in a more Al Jazeera angle and get a lot more graphic with pictures of the aftermath of this stuff
Then you would care because until the problems your politicians caused are fixed (and can we please lynch Bush and Cheney already?!?!) - you and your children would be subjected to graphic, violent images.
In an ideal world we could just bring the show to you and start hacking off your limbs or repeatedly gouge flesh from your body with an electric power drill before finishing you off with one *BZZZZZZZZZZ* to the temple and into the river with you and your family's worthless bodies.
I am not merely being colourful with my writing of this comment - the power drill method was a favourite method of torture utilised by the sectarian death squads several years ago in Iraq.
If you feel that you know next to nothing about the reality of things in Iraq as I once did then I suggest you get your hands on a book called "Red Zone" by Oliver Poole.
http://www.reportagepress.com/books-name.php?book=27
Since reading that book my knowledge of the Iraq war has gone from 'clear as mud' to 'clear as slightly diluted mud', but even that is much better than the obvious lack of knowledge demonstrated by the throw-away comments by some users (but most often spineless Anons) here.
Its funny that anyone ever believed the WMD story. If you have an hour to kill, watch this docco called "Paying the Price: Killing the Children of Iraq" by John Pilger. Made in 2000, it easily predates the invasion and has so much telling information that it is clear Iraq had none of the capabilities that the Bush, Blair & Howard governments claimed.
It also will break your heart to see the Iraqi people suffering horribly in the year 2000 because of international sanctions (which banned the supply of simple medicines even by humanitarian orginisations) - knowing full well that the people and children you are watching may already be long dead from a far worse fate than a lack of medicine.
Also - many here have expressed distrust and disgust at TV news in general and I must say I completely agree, however if you have time I suggest you check out the only TV news source I vaguely trust - Australian broadcaster SBS. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/
Although good, no TV news can ever be comprehensive enough to be a sole source for information and must, of course, always be supplemented with the net.
Its funny that anyone ever believed the WMD story.
Funny isn't the word I'd have chosen...
Not to defend the Iraq warhawks, but the fact that Saddam had actually used chemical weapons both against his own people and against the Iranians, that he was pretty much the Iconic Evil Dictator, and if his past actions were any indication would cheerfully have let large segments of the Iraqi population starve to pay for such a thing if he thought he would gain some advantage from doing so certainly gave some credibility to the accusation.
Doesn't make the lies and self-serving distortions of Bush and Co. any better, but does explain some of the willingness to believe them.
.... "the fact that Saddam had actually used chemical weapons both against his own people and against the Iranians, that he was pretty much the Iconic Evil Dictator, and if his past actions were any indication would cheerfully have let large segments of the Iraqi population starve to pay for such a thing if he thought he would gain some advantage from doing so certainly gave some credibility to the accusation.
Doesn't make the lies and self-serving distortions of Bush and Co. any better, but does explain some of the willingness to believe them."....
You are ignoring a massive elephant in the room of your reasoning.
By the time the Bush's and its unconditionals set their cross hairs on Iraq, the country had been under heavy sanctions and military restrictions of all kinds for several years.
Hussein's past atrocities certainly were worth considering, but by no means should have been the only factor determining action, all the available credible evidence (UN inspections and the US's UN backed military no fly zones) indicated that militarily his regime was emasculated (as probed to be the case).
In any case there was absolutely no connection between Hussein's regime and the attacks against the US (it is widely documented the repulsion of Hussein, who lead a secular dictatorship, agasint the ideas of Islamic fundamentalists, it is not gratuitous that he fought Iran and was actually embraced as the US's man during the war).
It is time that people that supported Bush begin to realize that their support for him was abused and that people stop trying to find justifications, which look flimsier the more they are invoked, for Bush and his accomplices.
"I think we really need to differentiate true Islamic belief and practice (including jihad) from suicide bombings that kill and maim scores of non-combatant men, women and children. My understanding is that suicide is expressly forbidden in the Islamic faith, as is the harming of individuals not directly engaging in warfare."
I agree with you, wolfiesma. From my reading about all this, it seems the key is that the bombers and the groups they belong to have developed the ideology of Takfir and are Takfiri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfiri). As I understand it, the basis of the idea is that their Imams or scholars can declare anyone they don't like to be bad muslims and therefore legitimate targets (of course, anyone who isn't a muslim is automatically a target to these people). Osama bin Laden used this tactic to attack the Saudi Royal family and elements of the religious leadership supporting them.
"Why does it seem, from the perspective of a Westerner surface feeding off mostly mainstream news sources, that there is no Islamic religious authority successfully arguing against the violence against civilians in this ongoing stream of suicide bombings?"
"But I don't understand why Islamic scholars and leaders have not been more successful in communicating the true tenets of their faith to the radical, murderous fringe."
Again, as I understand it, there is no central authority in Islam along the lines of the Vatican for Catholics. It seems the religion is defined and debated by the collective of individual scholars known as the ulama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulema). While the majority of scholars are well-trained and mainstream in their interpretation, it seems that anyone can be recognised as an authority if they can persuade people to follow their sayings. Consequently, the groups involved in terrorism are led by people who have political and religious goals and who find (or are influenced by) 'scholars' who will justify just about anything.
Your 20/20 hindsight is breathtaking in its clarity.
No need for hindsight. The rest of the world saw this clearly well before the invasion. Even 90% of the population of Britain, Bush's staunchest ally, was against the war. (And still they re-elected the lying scum.)
I'm hardly trying to defend Bush and Co. I voted against him and actively opposed the war. I think he damaged US credibility around the world forever, and I shudder to think of what will happen if US intelligence ever uncovers something that is not blatantly obvious and requires cooperation from the rest of the world to avert catastrophe.
But the opposition to Bush's war from "the rest of the world" has at least as much to do with his arrogance and jackassed brand of diplomacy (if you're not with us, you're against us, FFS) as it does with any evidence or lack thereof.
I'm just saying that Saddam himself aided the Bushonian lie machine by being such an unbelievable and unsympathetic fuck.
It is also interesting that you would cite popular opinion as part of your argument. In the BBC news today, a survey of 11,000 randomly selected people in 10 countries showed that over half favor creationism being taught in science classrooms, with 20% denying evolution completely, and almost 40% admitting they knew nothing about the theory.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8322781.stm
I'm not sure this is a pool of knowledge we want to draw on to influence policy....
This immediately drags my mind to Sean Gourley's work. I wonder what an attack of this size does to his alpha. (See him in this ted talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/sean_gourley_on_the_mathematics_of_war.html )
options and concluded that they're premised on the notion that we can keep the infrastructure of a bad design and somehow make it work. I'd argue (and since you asked, I'll put it out there) that we can't make the system work as its currently structured--as the saying goes, we'd be re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic as it slowly, irreversibly sinks into the ocean.
So... what do we do? One option is to delegitimize the current system and 'expose' it for how it really works. The easiest method for doing this is to stop participating in elections; stop voting for the least worst candidate. We should instead direct our time, energy, and cash to more worthwhile projects.If voter turnout drop to 25%, enabled by diehard supporters only, the problem would still exist--which is to say the system would still be in place--but it would no longer enjoy the veneer of legitimacy it does now. That would be an important step in the process of developing alternative systems that meet our needs. Frederick Douglass once noted, "The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." For as long as we will continue to enable bad behavior by supporting a bad system, 'leaders' will continue to act badly.
At some point, however, we will have to move beyond these easy and, I will admit, symbolic gestures. And we will have to ask some difficult questions before we act: What exactly is it that we want, what can we afford to lose to get it, is it even possible to get it, and if it is not then will we settle for something else? The question I have been asking myself a lot lately, reflecting on what I think are relatively effective or responsive examples of governance (Sweden, for example): "Is it possible that the U.S. is just too big, too heterogeneous, too diverse for us to make real, systemic changes?" To put it a different way, for every person on BoingBoing who wants the government to adopt more socialist-style policies, there is another who prefers that the government do the opposite and adopt a more libertarian approach. The problem here may be that we cannot resolve fundamental issues of this sort, looking like we do as a country. This problem is one of belief, ideology, and it's not something we can (or even should, necessarily) change in those who do not share our outlook. To paraphrase Arkizzle, the form our so-called 'New Resistance' ultimately takes, what we do, depends on this outlook.
After I came to better terms with my outlook, and accepted that the system as it currently exists in the U.S. probably cannot be changed without the most unlikely of circumstances (for example, it divides), I decided to leave and in 2006 became a resident of Canada, which is not a perfect society, but one in which I feel I can do good by other people both here and elsewhere in the world. Some here will find that response unacceptable... I found that universal healthcare and a life less demeaning was just what I needed to stay healthy and sane enough to keep from tuning out for the purpose of self-preservation.
Do you want more specific than that? I could talk about what I think are the benefits of self-sufficient, local-social/political/economic governance (some call it 'localization'), but for BoingBoing viewers with radically different outlooks than mine the conversation wouldn't be very productive. For Cicada @ 8:42pm the idea would be irrelevant; if a better world isn't really possible, why talk about it? I happen to believe it is possible, Arkizzle, and I'm not willing to just sit on my hands and hope for the best. But I also want folks to use more effective means of affecting the changes they desire and in my short time in this place I have not found public protest of the kind we saw during the 1960s (or February and March 2003) to be very effective.
I just hope your response wasn't snarky, otherwise my response won't represent a very effective use of my time, either.
Doh! My post is missing the first part of my first paragraph!
- - -
@Arkizzle,
I'm not entirely sure what form resistance (or reform, or resolution) would take, and I have considered this question for a very long time. If we define the problem as the fact our leaders/representatives will not listen to us as they make decisions in our names, we seem to have two options: either change the current political system so that it is more responsive to voters or instead abandon it in favor of something else. People who favor reform/s of the current system might suggest a change to how elections are run in the U.S. so that they are entirely publicly funded (to cut out the practice of favors-for-contributions). Or they might suggest that we infiltrate an existing political party to reform it, or create a viable third-party alternative that will be more responsive than the existing ones. I've considered each of these options and concluded that they're premised on the notion that we can keep the infrastructure of a bad design and somehow make it work. I'd argue (and since you asked, I'll put it out there) that we can't make the system work as its currently structured--as the saying goes, we'd be re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic as it slowly, irreversibly sinks into the ocean.
You actually gave the reason to give up yourself-- if you think the US is too big, too heterogeneous to adopt significant policy change because for every person who wants A is someone who wants not-A, how much less likely is it to work when dealing with a population 20 times as large and significantly more diverse?
Make a better neighborhood, better town, maybe even a better city or small state, but world?
I wasn't being snarky, Davidas, I really did wonder what you would offer. I'm not sure you have really offered anything new though, as far as solutions go.
Really you have said, if we don't like how a thing works, we should disengage or think of something better. Well, yeah.. that's what you do when you don't like something.
But what will be better? How will we convince ALL of the people to engage with our new plan (to avoid the divide you mention)? The mere identifiction of the problem, in this case, does nothing for us, as it has been identified by many before.
Will there need to be a revolution?
And what will be done differently in the new way? What form will the new government take?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government
I prefer to think of public protest as "part of this nutritious breakfast". Sure, everyone is looking for the single magical tool that will overwhelm the opposition and be ultimately relevant. Until that method is successful, we're plugging away as best we know how. Or we're just trying to survive ourselves, never mind change the system.
There's diagnostic activism, where you're just trying to characterize the problem, and there's prescriptive activism, where you're walking the talk. Suicide bombings are a kind of prescriptive activism that (in my opinion) leaves behind the diagnostic.
I see the key challenge being violence as a force multiplier. As far as I can tell, this effect only works when society is kludged together, not so organized as it could be. After some kind of threshold is reached, violence becomes a force divider- it's more effective to play by nonviolent rules than to 'cheat' using violence.
The paradox comes in when all players realize the advantage of playing by sensible rules, but no one wants to go first.
That's my diagnostic activism. I don't talk about my prescriptive activism on open channels.
If we define the problem as the fact our leaders/representatives will not listen to us as they make decisions in our names...
Is this the problem?
Or is the problem that too much of the electorate is uneducated, uninformed and too easily led into supporting policies that are not in their best interests?
@ arkizzle,
You are correct in that I have not said anything that someone has not already identified and/or covered, but obviously not entirely resolved. If the issue were merely one of disputation in the classical sense (people enter a conversation with biases but also a willingness to be convinced, the more compelling argument identified, its conclusions agreed upon), then we would have an easier time of things. We could bring together smart people with good ideas and address issues and problems when they come up. But we do not live in that kind of world. So, the question of what would be better than the current political system in the U.S. has answers, but I’m not sure it’s the question we should be asking if ultimately we cannot agree on fundamental principles which undergird whatever system we might adopt (in this respect, I think Cicada @ 11:47am is right, though I do not aspire to change the world as such, as he implies) I just don’t think democracy, libertarianism, or socialism would work in the U.S. because people there hold such incommensurate views on the proper role of government and how it should be structured (and even about how we should interact with other human beings, our obligations to other people). This is not to say that other citizenry in other countries do not disagree with each other, but rather that they generally agree on some basic ground rules. Most citizens of Switzerland, to use just one example, support the idea of political, economic, and military neutrality, business-friendly capitalism, maintained by direct democracy at the commune/canton/federal level. It is precisely because most Swiss want their neutrality and capitalism, and the fact that the nation and population are small (16,000 sq. mi. for 7.6 million people), that their system of direct democracy works.
I cannot convince all U.S. citizens of the superiority of one political system or social solution in comparison to others, or even a considerable majority. My inability to do so is not, I don’t think, because better systems do not exist or because I’m an un-charismatic guy, but rather because the diversity and size of our sample is just too big and, as danlalan suggests above, just too resistant by choice or by ignorance. You cannot convince most libertarians of the superiority of socialism, not necessarily because they’re obstinate or ignorant (though some might be) but rather because they honestly believe that when it comes to governance, less is more. Libertarianism just cannot exist alongside socialism, not if you want a reasonably well-functioning government. And while I do not want to reduce our civil disagreements entirely to this political axis, the consequence of our political disagreements is that we move the posts with respect to major policies forward and backward every few years, with fundamental disagreements on what exactly constitutes ‘forward’ and ‘backward’.
[D]anlalan @ 12:52pm suggests maybe the real problem is education; educated citizens can cut through the bullshit our political system seems to produce at a prodigious rate. A contributor to a discussion I observed on an unrelated forum articulated this position nicely: “[F]lawed systems have a worse chance of functioning properly and at the same time a better chance of screwing things up when the quality of the people involved is low. For me it all comes back to the same basic problems that Jones raises in her post and that plenty of us have been harping on for many years before I was born: there is a base level of knowledge and facility that a citizenry must have in order to have high-functioning legal and governmental systems. The first thing autocratic or plutocratic governments do en route to disaster is find ways to make the people stupid. We seem to have democratized the perpetuation of stupidity, anti-intellectualism, and hasty decision making. It's bad for our legal system and it's bad for the republic.” But how will we produce an educated citizenry if we cannot agree upon what that means, what constitutes an appropriate education, what role does the government have in determining and regulating the answer? To make things even worse, the problem in the U.S. is not just that the people disagree about the fundamental principles of governance, but also that a sizable enough number of people exists who refuse to ‘play the game’ as it were if their ideas or candidates are not accepted by others: they reject the outcomes of elections and threaten violence or secession in the name of preserving their vision. Organizations such as Fox News encourage this behavior, but most of us recoil at the notion of censoring or restricting their efforts. Recent presidents (Clinton, Bush, Obama) have made this sort of thing common in the White House with the gratuitous use of signing statements. A more extreme example of this behavior re: democracy occurred in Algeria in 1992 when the military
forcibly cancelled elections in that country because it seemed clear the Islamic Salvation Front (ISM) would win, and the ISM had promised that upon victory they would end the practice of elections altogether and impose sharia law. Could we do the same in the name of libertarianism or socialism?
Obviously I am spiraling farther away from the discussion at hand and I should reign myself in. My point is that ultimately it may be more productive to think about how we can better facilitate the grouping and enfranchising of people who agree upon some basic principles of governance than hoping and attempting to make this potentially unworkable state work as it currently exists. I want to suggest the U.S. is a wonderful, but /in toto/ unsustainable, socio-political experiment.
A Revolution, then!
I actually agree with much of what you say, but foresee just another separatist think-tank proposal of Something Better that will never be acted upon by society-at-large (just a few Believers in the desert, building the New Way)..
I say, think of your Something Better, stockpile arms, plan it meticulously, stockpile more arms, get people inspired, stockpile some heavier arms, and then revolt!
You'll need a jingle, or a snappy tagline at least.
/Not said half as sarcastically as it may appear
They, they, they, they, them, them, those people. This is important, sad and horrible. The detachment from the event occurs because it doesn't effect me and it doesn't seem like I can do anything about it anyway. Ironically, the situation may have arisen from detachment; from two cultures not understanding each other and seeking to destroy the other because of historical events and current power struggles.
Someone wonders why we should care less about terrible things happening in far away lands...
How about... because there is nothing I can do about it.
I cringe when I hear about these things, and I sometimes weep for the children and families of the dead. But what good does that do? I guess I can pray for them, but aside from the divine aid I may or may not be able to call down from heaven, there is really nothing I can do for these people.
I've never done much of anything to help the Iraqis. And I probably never will. But when I heard that my neighbor lady's husband left her with three kids and a mortgage she can't afford, I took a plate of apple cake, and talked with her for a while... Not much, but SOMETHING.