tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post5712923759835426828..comments2024-03-17T10:32:01.495+02:00Comments on From the Rock: Highlanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16532761296990891687noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-84893188242218654612007-04-29T21:41:00.000+03:002007-04-29T21:41:00.000+03:00Bah Curt Empires come and go ... no bird can fly u...Bah Curt Empires come and go ... no bird can fly up forever :)Highlanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16532761296990891687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-34109309419888451882007-04-22T00:09:00.000+02:002007-04-22T00:09:00.000+02:00It must respect our ancient civilization. We where...<I>It must respect our ancient civilization. We where ruling the world when they where running around in underware swinging on trees in gaul.</I><BR/><BR/>Couldn't that be said about the Arabs during the Roman Empire? Minus the "swinging on trees in gaul" part of course. :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-2887878838614738982007-04-18T18:32:00.000+02:002007-04-18T18:32:00.000+02:00We where ruling the world when they where running ...<I>We where ruling the world when they where running around in underware swinging on trees in gaul.</I><BR/><BR/>if that makes you proud, I 'll leave it up to you !<BR/><BR/>though, celts had a culture that were not recorded with writings, and their jewellry artefacts are nevertheless a proof of their aptitudes do the "hittites give you an idea ?NOMADhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16557946021931920145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-67983519751555232452007-04-17T22:37:00.000+02:002007-04-17T22:37:00.000+02:00You see my point now Lost Libyano ?Not everything ...You see my point now Lost Libyano ?<BR/>Not everything is what you think it is<BR/><BR/>Yes Its even better then what I thought It was. <BR/><BR/>One thing though that really pissed me off about the speach was that the KSA destroyed the house of the Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) and Khadija(PBUH) and BUILT A TOILET ON TOP OF THE SITE!!!!! :(<BR/><BR/>These people are truley sick animals!! Why did they do this??!!<BR/><BR/>As far as the Bar-Bars being the original arabs, and the pheocians, as well thats a AMAZING IDEA!:) <BR/><BR/>I mean Dude if you think about it if we take every culture, and every acomplishment achived by people who inhabit North Africa, and The Middle East... then by all means that makes us truley the master race. <BR/><BR/>We are the cradle of Civilization, God choose us to reveal his final word, we should be rulers of the world. If we put all of our oil toghther, all of our natural resources, and totally unite under one super banner then we are truley, completly, unstopable.<BR/><BR/>The Pheocians or Arabs with boats discovered THE AMERICAS. That means no European American has the right to ever call me a forigner again, because I am arab and so are "Pheocians". So Arabs in actuallity discovered America. Its a Amazing idea. Not to mention the Great Leader has a point, they are trying to divide and conquere us. <BR/><BR/>That scum bag Wafa Sultan signed a Imazighen something or other petition. That disgusts me beyond what words can possibly describe, I despise that women.:( <BR/><BR/>They want to break us up like they broke up the Iraqi's, kurd this, sunni this, or that. Screw that dude, united we stand!!!<BR/><BR/> Unity. No More division no more hate, we must unite against these people. Programmer Craig proved a perfect example when he said that he was doing you a favor by mentioning his imaginary "arab aggression" against North Africa, they want to make us fight each other, so they can sneak in and take our oil, and our minerals, have us blowing each other up like monsters, while they sit back and drink a six pack pumping our oil from the ground. <BR/><BR/>If the west wants peace it must learn RESPECT. <BR/><BR/>It must respect our ancient civilization. We where ruling the world when they where running around in underware swinging on trees in gaul. :P>https://www.blogger.com/profile/00658857518250991635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-71555539476984531292007-04-16T20:40:00.000+02:002007-04-16T20:40:00.000+02:00You see my point now Lost Libyano ?Not everything ...You see my point now Lost Libyano ?<BR/>Not everything is what you think it is - of course this advice goes for everybody else visiting this blog :PHighlanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16532761296990891687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-66502717014886611592007-04-16T19:23:00.000+02:002007-04-16T19:23:00.000+02:00@The Lost Libyano, please re-read the 'Fatimid spe...@The Lost Libyano, please re-read the 'Fatimid speech' and spot the error - there is a major error in between the lines. <BR/><BR/>ohh..... well I just went and read the actual full script.:( <BR/><BR/>Islamonline is a good example of a "bad Islamic Site" what they posted is as diffrent from night and day from what I have just read. <BR/><BR/>Ummm I dont exactly know what to say..... I am sad:(<BR/><BR/>That is all I shall say, very, very, very sad. Very sad and very lost.:(>https://www.blogger.com/profile/00658857518250991635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-39987780487282540252007-04-13T15:04:00.000+02:002007-04-13T15:04:00.000+02:00http://www.iran-resist.org/article3335it appears t...http://www.iran-resist.org/article3335<BR/><BR/>it appears that the iranian detainee was a fake, he was tortured afterwords by his compatriots services in Iran... manipulation of the medias, actually they know very well to play with bluffNOMADhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16557946021931920145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-56797892347836834612007-04-12T07:38:00.000+02:002007-04-12T07:38:00.000+02:00The military men who revealed what was going on at...The military men who revealed what was going on at Abu Ghraib of course did the right thing. I agree with you, HL, that while atrocities are inevitably done in any war, they should not be tolerated.<BR/>About Ann Coulter - she is a provokative, controversial journalist. She rejects Darwinism, so I haven't high opinion of her IQ. I don't think she jokes often; her statements immediately after Sept. 11 may rather be a result of shock. But she is not very different in calmer times, too. I think the society needs such voices, not only to secure freedom of speech but because they provoke thoughts and sometimes vent the society's frustrations. The important thing is not to give them real power, not to appoint them as teachers and of course never to offer them weapons. And so I am somewhat taken aback by you comparing her to Ahmadinejad. You may be right that words can be deadlier than a sword, but I'm-mad-in-jihad doesn't rely on such obsolete weapons, he may soon have nuclear bombs.<BR/>Everybody is now talking how well things are going with Iran, this makes me sick. Let me quote a blogger who usually doesn't write about politics:<BR/>"Unreason... has reached the point<BR/>where many people believe that wanting something to be true will MAKE it true...Iran’s nuclear program is much in the news of late and all reports include a comment to the effect that “Iran claims that the nuclear program is solely for power generation”. What I never hear said is that Iran is a net exporter of oil and has an infrastructure that is so dysfunctional that it has to import gasoline. It seems extremely unlikely that Iran would put the money and effort into something so complicated as nuclear power when it could buy oil-fired power plants for a fraction of the cost. And without stirring up the threat of UN sanctions. Still, the talking heads and pundits seem to all be of the mind that by not actually saying that Iran’s rationale is full of baloney, they won’t have to face the ugly truth that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is trying to make a nuclear bomb in order to destroy Israel – as he has repeatedly said he was." (http://photoninthedarkness.blogspot.com/2007/04/age-of-unreason.html)Maya Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10877457709995369246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-13620692115904324652007-04-11T22:29:00.000+02:002007-04-11T22:29:00.000+02:00Hi Nomad,If these cities are open-mined to let liv...Hi Nomad,<BR/><BR/><I>If these cities are open-mined to let live the gay population in security</I><BR/><BR/>The problems in San Francisco don't really have anything to do with gays, Nomad. It dates back to the 1960s when San Francisco was the center of the counter-culture movement. The counter-culture movement never ended, in San Franciso. The hippies (who are in their 60s now) still live there. Most of them are still heavy drug users (if not addicts) and live on welfare. And they are full time protesters. They *hate* the United States. They've been in the "opposition" for 40+ years. Bush and the WoT just give them a convenient platform.<BR/><BR/>SF became a city that was attractive to gays because they found it very friendly to them. The presence of homosexuals in San Francisco is merely incidental. Homeless drug addicts congregate in San Francisco for the same reasons.<BR/><BR/>Highlander,<BR/><BR/><I>it was not the media only who was a whistleblower they were some military guys whose conscience was not comfortable with these things and who informed the chain of command or others</I><BR/><BR/>The military did an entire investigation before the media ever got hold of the story. The Taguba Report (which was the basis for the criminal prosecutions and convictions) was filed 6 months before the photos were made public by the media.programmer craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17566950406349754166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-58941057967472092162007-04-11T20:35:00.000+02:002007-04-11T20:35:00.000+02:00Curt from Houston :) thank you for taking the pain...Curt from Houston :) thank you for taking the pain to reply seriously ( ps I sent you an email on Easter but you still have not read it probably in your spam) .<BR/><BR/>It is irrelevant, I think if it was Americans or Brits in the waters, though of course the US does have the larger firepower so Iran won't be a match against it. Let us be grateful that it ended thus. The US does not have to be in Iranian waters to provoke a war, they can start it right there at the Iraqi borders. Anyway that was not the point I wanted to make. <BR/><BR/>I see the irony from your point of view in your post where you compare Iraq and WWII. However, from this side the two instances are incomparable. Yes Americans were the heroes of WWII absolutely they helped free Europe, but only after German's ally Japan attacked it in Pearl Harbour. i.e. only then did the freedom of Europe and fighting the evil Nazi become a mission right. At least lets not be selective about the whole picture. <BR/><BR/>Iraq is a different matter despite the broad lines you mention. I'm sure you are bored now of the debate about how invading Iraq was a mistake. So I'll spare us and the readers the whole story which is not the topic of this post :) .<BR/>As for Ann Coulter , I feel better to understand that her statements are simply jokes. I really was scared there for a while at her utterances, it seemed to me comparable to Ahmadinejad's ranting about the Jews..<BR/><BR/>With regards to Abughraib, I said in one of my earlier posts when it took place that there is no need for the world to be shocked nor horrified , because war is war and I expect ugliness and no mercy.<BR/><BR/>I don't agree that the prisoners at Abu where all terrorist/Islamists, as some were kids , others were old and others were women. But even if they were it is not a reason for sexual abuse.I think the shock is mostly on part of the Iraqis who thought that they were at last free from Saddam's terror.But really my point is not to discuss Abu either . I think it just came as an example like the Stanford prison test thingy , how people turn bad :) bad apple or bad basket ? <BR/><BR/>Nomad hi:) I think Curt was quoting Ann Coulter , but yes it is a bit of an exageration to say that if sadist sex is acceptable in capitals of the world it is fine to subject prisoners to it. It sets a bad precedent although I always suspect that there is sexual abuse in all prisons in the world. However it should be an exception not a rule non ?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Maya , if I recall well, it was not the media only who was a whistleblower they were some military guys whose conscience was not comfortable with these things and who informed the chain of command or others, how can the media get it if someone does not let the cat out of the bag ?<BR/>Ah BUT I do agree that media wants profit yes !<BR/><BR/>Basically let's hope another warfront can be averted in the ME.Highlanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16532761296990891687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-59393155409499936682007-04-11T17:10:00.000+02:002007-04-11T17:10:00.000+02:00Highlander, I've never tried to whitewash the guar...Highlander, I've never tried to whitewash the guards who abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib. But I was talking specifically about broadcasting such acts, making them known to the largest audience possible, especially to the "enemy" population, in an attempt to destroy their morale. It is also the essence of terror, isn't it?<BR/>This approach has been used for millenia. Romans claim that their enemies (Vercingetorix and Hannibal) tortured Roman captives so that other Roman soldiers could see and hear. Romans themselves crucified slave rebels in public.<BR/>I've posted once about Byzantine emperor Basil II who blinded more than 10000 Bulgarian captives and then sent them home.<BR/>In this way, you not only humiliate, torture, kill humanity in one or a few persons (the victims), you hurt humanity in survivors, too. Civilizations generally try to abstain from this approach, so I called it barbaric.<BR/>In the Abu Ghraib case, the media didn't blow the whistle. As far as I know, "blowing the whistle" means to make public some bad practice in order to discontinue it. As I have said, the media's goal wasn't to discontinue prisoner abuse, just to make money by the most reliable way - harming their country. So the main result of the "whistleblowing" was the death of Nicholas Berg. I hope it has satisfied the "whistleblowers".Maya Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10877457709995369246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-50819078424839329052007-04-11T11:57:00.000+02:002007-04-11T11:57:00.000+02:00sighsighmanihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00850550976088353491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-90923451020250751602007-04-11T08:21:00.000+02:002007-04-11T08:21:00.000+02:00One more thought H. No one appreciates peace more ...One more thought H. No one appreciates peace more than a soldier.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-61792831903979164232007-04-11T08:05:00.000+02:002007-04-11T08:05:00.000+02:00"I'm not sure I got you right here Curt , do you m...<I>"I'm not sure I got you right here Curt , do you mean that it is OK that the prisoners were abused in Abughraib because Ann Coulter said that sexual abuse is a fashion statement in hip cities of Europe and America."</I><BR/><BR/>No H, I'm not. Having been in the military and been responsible for the lives of my people, I would not have limited myself to such petty inconveniences that the Abughraib detainees were subjected to if I thought it would save the life of one of my own in war.<BR/><BR/>If by shooting one of them through the head, I could save the life of one of my people, I would do it.<BR/><BR/>It's called war and it's not pretty. We put our own front line troops through worse training than Abughraib just to prepare them in case they are taken prisoner.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-16844245560454159612007-04-11T05:25:00.000+02:002007-04-11T05:25:00.000+02:00"I am glad that the situation was resolved diploma...<I>"I am glad that the situation was resolved diplomatically.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm happy that it ended peacefully as well. I just wonder what the Iranians would have done if it were an American guided missile destroyer instead of fifteen soldiers in a rubber dingy. That's assuming that they were in Iranian waters to begin with.<BR/><BR/><I>When the US and Israel are actively looking for war, I am proud that Britain uses peaceful means.</I><BR/><BR/>If the US was looking for war, it <B>would</B> have been a guided missile destroyer and they would have made sure that they were in Iranian waters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-37188854973357923972007-04-11T01:47:00.000+02:002007-04-11T01:47:00.000+02:00As for the so called prison abuses in Abu Ghraib, ...<I> As for the so called prison abuses in Abu Ghraib, as Ann Coulter pointed out, there are people in New York, Paris, and San Francisco that would be willing to pay good money for that kind of treatment.<BR/><BR/>Not exactly like being fed feet first into a plastic shredder like Sadam and his darling boys were want to do with their enemies eah?</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>I'm not sure I got you right here Curt , do you mean that it is OK that the prisoners were abused in Abughraib because Ann Coulter said that sexual abuse is a fashion statement in hip cities of Europe and America. Does that somehow condone it ? Does that mean that S & M is a core value in those places and so prisoners should feel privileged ? <BR/><BR/>And what kind of comparison is it to do so with Saddam Hussein, are you saying that Saddam Hussein and the US military are morally equal ? I thought that he was a monster. Are the atrocities perpetrated by Saddam some kind of yardstick to measure oneself with ? i.e it is ok to abuse those Iraqis because Saddam did worse .<BR/><BR/>You know very well that it is not an excuse Curt from Houston. Being at the top you have to be held as an impeccable example of what is best and not compare yourself to Saddam and his henchmen. <BR/>What is good and I applaud your people for that is those who reported the abuses and that the perpetrators were put on trial at least. This means that there are still a lot of good apples in the bad basket. Those are the people who make you proud and whom we have to be grateful.Right ?<BR/><BR/>As for this Ann Coulter, I never heard about her. But the internet is an interesting source of info so is this the same woman featured here ?<BR/><BR/>http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0111.coulterwisdom.html<BR/><BR/>Here is a gem from her writings :<BR/>"we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." hmmm ...since I trust you as a person of good judgment and friend and you have obviously quoted her, should I assume she is a leading journalist and a shaper and mover of ideas ? That's a scary thought .<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>@Maya <I>As for the humiliating photos from Abu Ghraib, it was not the people who humiliated the detainees that broadcasted the photos, do you remember? It was done by media ready to show anything and to hurt their country's cause in any way just to boost their profits. </I><BR/><BR/>Do you mean that the prisoners were not humiliated until their photos were broadcast ? I have difficulty grasping that. The humiliation and phsychological damage was done by tbe mere fact of the perpetration of the abuse. They were abused , they know they were being photographed , and the soldiers/officers were emailing and sharing the photos with their friends/buddies/ family . Moroever. those prisoners that were released were probably recounting what they saw in prison to friends and relatives. So the humiliation was known and felt. However, it became well known when it spread all over the net and the media.<BR/>The fact the media diffused it does not absole the perpetrators of this act nor make it less humiliating. You've just absolved some very perverted people and I can't see what point you are trying to prove by this. So you would have no problem with this kind of treatment and would recommend it as standard prison procedure as long as the media cannot find out about it and blow the whistle...Highlanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16532761296990891687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-61849488621719888072007-04-10T09:07:00.000+02:002007-04-10T09:07:00.000+02:00"I know it could be a lot of BS but given the past...<I>"I know it could be a lot of BS but given the past abuses uncovered I admit by the occupation forces and where some have even gone on trial...and the bad feeling between Iran and the US since 1979 ......there must be some grain of truth in this ? what do you think ?"</I><BR/><BR/>I suspect that if we really did resort to physical torture H, there would have been a pretty good pressing reason for it and this man would never have been heard from again.<BR/><BR/>As for the so called prison abuses in Abu Ghraib, as Ann Coulter pointed out, there are people in New York, Paris, and San Francisco that would be willing to pay good money for that kind of treatment.<BR/><BR/>Not exactly like being fed feet first into a plastic shredder like Sadam and his darling boys were want to do with their enemies eah?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-27580942685529296032007-04-10T08:29:00.000+02:002007-04-10T08:29:00.000+02:00Mani, hearing you say that opinions like mine shap...Mani, hearing you say that opinions like mine shape politics, I can only answer, "May it go from your mouth into God's ears". The people I vote for almost invariably remain in opposition. During the post-1989 period, my favourites were elected only twice and in both cases it was after the majority's favourites had left the country literally with nothing to eat. As for my opinion in international affairs, you said yourself that 3/4 of people oppose it.<BR/>Highlander, you are right that international law protects uniformed soldiers only. Let me give an example. North of Sofia, there is a village Thompson. It was named after a British lieutenant who was sent during WWII to contact Bulgarian Communist guerrillas. He found a group of them, but then the Bulgarian army attacked the group. Thompson was captured, sentenced to death and executed. He was a member of an "official" army, but he wasn't in uniform when he was captured. For that reason, Bulgaria was never required to compensate in any way the young man's family.<BR/>However, my opinion what is barbaric and what not is not based on any law. Barbarism has often been institutionalized in laws throughout history - and still is in many countries. I have my head to decide what is right and what wrong. I feel free to criticize Scriptures that believers think are dictated by God, then why not criticize laws that are admittedly created by fellow humans?<BR/>I wouldn't approve if recorded confessions of captured terrorists in Gitmo or elsewhere were broadcasted, either.<BR/>As for the humiliating photos from Abu Ghraib, it was not the people who humiliated the detainees that broadcasted the photos, do you remember? It was done by media ready to show anything and to hurt their country's cause in any way just to boost their profits.Maya Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10877457709995369246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-17659805439593036242007-04-09T21:05:00.000+02:002007-04-09T21:05:00.000+02:00Programmer_Craig he is accusing the US tortured hi...<I>Programmer_Craig he is accusing the US tortured him ...</I><BR/><BR/>I don't much care what comes out of the mouth of an Iranian "diplomat" when his lips move, H. Sorry. I'm funny that way. I just said if he was in the custody of Iraqis he most likely was tortured severely. The Iraqis have become quite adept at torture. Maybe they always have been.<BR/><BR/>Mani, I don't agree with all that you said about not intervening in the affairs of other states as it is illegal and such. That was in the darkest days of the Cold War. The Soviet Union was not only "interfering" in the affairs of other states, it was INVADING them and adding them to it's empire. The WHOLE WORLD was looking to the US to be a counterweight to the Soviets. I don't think anything but a blind and ignorant fool would say otherwise. And that wasn't even a "Cold War" except if one means that the US and the Soviets were never directly engaging each other militarily. There were many "hot" wars fought during the Cold War. Many invasions. Many governments fell. Many lives were lost. I think you are looking at the world as it is today, instead of how it was then.<BR/><BR/>And just so you know, I would support my government financing and/or planning the toppling of Castro, as well. Not Chavez... yet. But maybe at some point in the future. We don't have to wait until the shooting starts to know that somebody is our enemy, Mani. Sometimes, they come right out and say so :)programmer craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17566950406349754166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-78674442235917939092007-04-08T18:28:00.000+02:002007-04-08T18:28:00.000+02:00Programmer_Craig he is accusing the US tortured hi...Programmer_Craig he is accusing the US tortured him ...<BR/><BR/><BR/>Mani thanks for this essay/study I wanted once to explain to a friend the different factors affecting our region and always felt my explanations lacked sophistication. You've made my job easier I simply need to print this now :) Needless to say I hear ya buddy !Highlanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16532761296990891687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-32770201252035358082007-04-08T06:10:00.000+02:002007-04-08T06:10:00.000+02:00Salam Craig, Toady, Highlander and all,Let me fir...Salam Craig, Toady, Highlander and all,<BR/><BR/>Let me first give you what a conventional rebuttal of your argument may sound like.<BR/><BR/>Regardless of Mossadiq’s political agenda, he was a populist and democratically elected by the people of his country. The most important thing that people keep forgetting is that it is against international law to intervene in the political sovereignty of a state, without a bilateral agreement. That just undermines democracy and international order. <BR/><BR/>On the one hand, cases of ‘democratically’ elected leaders by their nations, such as Hugo Chavez in Venezuela for example, or Hamas in Palestine, if their political agendas are not in line with US interests, then that is not ‘democracy’ and will not be tolerated. The state is still ‘hostile’ to US interests or ‘allies’ in the region.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, cases where the leaderships are undemocratic, often authoritarian, repressive and hostile to their own domestic citizens, if they offer a good deal to US economic and strategic interests, then they are accepted and considered legitimate, as is the case in Libya now for example.<BR/><BR/>In other cases, even when there is no concrete evidence of hostile interests, hostility therefore just depends on how un-welcoming the state is of US economic interests in the region, which are naturally the exploitation of natural, capital and human resources for US commercial interests through neo-liberal policies, and setting up the country with a huge loan and aid programme for huge ‘developmental’ projects, through the WB. <BR/>The failure of of aid/ debt driven programmes mixed with neo-liberal adjustment policies have been the defining intellectual paradigm of economic development and the crucial problem behind US conflict of interest with third world states.<BR/><BR/>Its natural that in US or external interventionism, and in all this hubbub, everyone completely disregards the social, economic and political realities of the state in question, and its populace are ultimately subjects of external policy. This is the era of ‘state collapse’.<BR/><BR/>The failure of diplomatic and economic intervention will therefore incur constant attempts from the US to undermine a state’s authority, either by direct interventions in its politics through support of dissedants and pressure groups, to direct support of military ‘coupe d’atats’ as the Hugo Chavez case in 2002 demonstrated. Or by drumming up the support of the ‘international community’ through the UN for resolutions and sanctions etc against a hostile state, even hen hostility is only ‘pre-empted’.<BR/><BR/>Regardless of wether the interests were in line with the US’s or not, that state still has the right to enjoy state sovereignty, especially when its leaders are democratically elected. The US has no right to intervene whatsoever. <BR/><BR/>If diplomatic intervention fails through the international community (UN) then the US somehow becomes a rogue state, with the claim that it as the ‘right’ to act unilaterally including military action, (by convention it assumes), as it is the world leading superpower, and self appointed guardian of Human right conventions, and lets not go to the hypocracy in that.<BR/><BR/>Now I know that you could justify all this for me against the backdrop of (soviet standoff) historically and the fact that the US, being a democratic and economical stable country is now the only the righteous and benevolent superpower, and I would probably agree with you as most Arab and Muslim dissidents would, had I believed in the same ‘international state theory’ as you or they do do. <BR/><BR/>This is to say that ALL states are in fact individual actors, representative of their people and regardless of how they ‘rule’ their people, they have territorial sovereignty and their existence is legitimised by their simple inclusion on the ‘league of nations’ (UN).<BR/><BR/>This may apply to the nations of Europe, and the Anglo-American establishments and commonwealths who had a distinct historical and social experience which led to their ‘statehood’, but to the rest of the world it was a different story.<BR/><BR/>We don’t agree on the assumptions you see and therefore I do not share this world view for two simple reasons.<BR/><BR/>1) I believe that the soviet standoff, although at the time may have been politically ‘real’, it is largely recognised by contemporary scholarship that real ‘danger’ was a myth, especially after the investigations of Team B’s analysis of Soviet activity and its international policy implications, all of which senior officials in the CIA have come out and said was complete bullshit and lies. The soviet system was a decript system falling from within itself and that’s exactly how it ended with the crash of the Union.<BR/><BR/>What the (soviet backdrop) did however was legitimise a number of important initiatives that are crucial to understanding the political realities of today. <BR/><BR/>1) it allowed the possibility of the creation of ‘national’ statehood, in countries that had no concept of ‘foramal’ statehood or nation hood, committing them to arbitary border lines drawn up by the Anglo American and European imperial powers. The nature of these states was naturally communistic or socialistic, in order to create a central or focal point of authority that European states could negotiate with and include in the league of nations, and it was logical that they would not match the tribal or social configuration of their inhabitants <BR/><BR/>2) it created the possibility of legitimising intervention in countries that were designtated as ‘communist’ and support of repression of populist moevements and gueralla fighters branding them as ‘communist’ socialists, anarchists, or whatever was convenient for propaganda to commit and mobilise political and military action<BR/><BR/>3) It allowed the concentration of state funds and subsidies on huge military and space research and development programs directly from the taxes and revenues of debt to domestic citizens and states. <BR/><BR/>4) It also allowed the possibility of private capital flight from Europe into US banks, which then lent them out at interest to rebuild Europe “The Marshall Plan” <BR/><BR/>5) It created an outlet for US economic surplus and produce and created a dependency economy crises for the states of Latin America for example, or exploitation of cheap labour and of financial tax evasion and usurpation of wealth in African and East Asian economies <BR/><BR/>6) It directly gave rise to the Taliban and Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan, training Bin Ladin and the ‘Muslim’ extremists who were aspiring for political power at the time, and who were recognised by Reagan as reminding him of ‘our forefathers’ and dedicating the lauch of US Discovery to the ‘freedom fighters’… Im sure the informed reader will think of many other effects of this ‘backdrop’.<BR/><BR/>Of course this is puzzling o the reader who still believes that states are actually individual actors. <BR/><BR/>The idea that some form of collusion or complicated set of interests that are ‘global’, rather than ‘national, just seems like a ‘conspiracy’ so they would rather stick to the naive world view and just watch the show unfold on their TV screens, vying for this side one day, and the other side the next. All in the elusive search for ‘peace and democracy’.<BR/><BR/>This reader just does not understand the concept of social power, and how the international system is maintained. This is because they do not fully appreciate the role of international ‘capital’ in shaping world events.<BR/><BR/>2) This is the second reason which leads me not to share your world view.<BR/><BR/>Quickly summarised, I believe that international capital was the shaping force behind world events, since the start of the second world war at least (I believe longer).<BR/><BR/>International capital is also the creator of ‘Capitalist’, ‘Communist’ and ‘Socialist’ state ideologies, and their presumed conflict.<BR/><BR/>The movement of international capital is, by the definitions of international financiers, the “Management of Conflicts of Interest”.<BR/><BR/>An exhaustive discussion of this will include political economy, the international stock exchange system, Central Banking, international monetry and finance mechanism, and the role of ‘Old Boy’ and philanthropic networks… Please feel free to research it as it is of urgent importance and I cant explain it here.<BR/><BR/>But for the person who uses common sense, and relates to concrete world events that influence their daily lives from their livelihood, to their human rights to their citizenship, they will be able to recognise this fact simply now international capital is coming out in the open, not needing to hide behind the garb of the league of nations anymore. <BR/><BR/>The most decisive meetings in the world now take place behind closed doors with elite members of society, a mix of our elected representatives and other un-elected oligarchs and multinational corporations, NGO and social leaders and money managers in places like the World Economic Forum, rightly calling itself ‘The Masters of the universe’. <BR/><BR/>Any political commentator can tell u the power that these third party ‘internationalists’ have in changing international reality. <BR/><BR/>I as a Libyan for example don’t need to guess. Our country’s current shift, although still greatly coordinated by Gaddafi, was directly propelled into action by a formal agreement between Gadafi’s Son Seif Al Islam and Harvard Business Guru Michael Porter, who co-founded an ‘ economic competitiveness’ consultancy firm (Monitor Group), that is currently at the forefront and leading policy change in Libya’s reform programme. That meeting happened in Davos in the World Economic Forum, I mean hey… why don’t people make the connection?.<BR/><BR/>One needn’t even go into this speculation. Normal people all over the world are rightly appalled by the specific form of Globalisation that is sweeping the globe and its dire effect on the welfare of the poor. Demonstrations, intellectual campaigns and anti globalisation movements in developed countries directly echo the suffering and exploitation of the world’s poor as a direct result of the dominance of international capital rights over ‘human’ rights.<BR/><BR/>The biggest mistake anti ‘conspiracy theorists’ make is the thinking that world events are separate from each other simply because they cannot make the effort to understand the dynamics of the financial industry that is at the centre of the web of power here.<BR/><BR/>This mentality only discourages institutional analysis, which is required if one wants to know how anything is run.<BR/><BR/>Once one begins to understand the Links between international ‘fiat’ capital, commerce, and industries like the arm’s industries, it becomes conceivable to understand how finance can ‘buy’ America’s and other nations’ military power and intervention, and cheat the people of ‘democracy’ from their no#1 blessing. Governments, and the instruments of their governance, defence and economics just become mere pawns for international capital. This is becoming more and more evident everyday.<BR/><BR/>For me, what I see on TV is a pantomime. I can see exactly why US military commanders and strategists call the territories of their intervention the ‘theatre of war’. War planning on this scale takes years if months to come about, and if you wanna have a peak at the future read the neo-conservative PNAC document, written before coming to power, and see how close it’s strategies matches world events. The frigate and ‘Floating Fortresses’ of the US navy arrived last year. Already maps are up prepared for the re-conquest of the ‘heartlands’ and the division of the Arab world including Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Jordan, and Yemen, what they think would bring about a peaceful ‘New Middle East’, the number one foreign policy as stated by Rice.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, if we don’t come to agree at least on these two simple principles:<BR/><BR/>1) that ‘states’ are not really individual actors, regardless of the goodwill of the people that ‘help’ running them.<BR/>2) international money talks world events <BR/><BR/>then we have no more basis for agreement on any effective political solution that would bring about freedom, democracy and development. We could share some insight on principles and abstract means of good governance, but they would not really be applicable as the realities are a lot more complex, with various historical, financal, religious, national, tribal, cultural loyalties and affiliations which any honest proponent of democracy would take the trouble to confront before espousing any ‘programme of action’.<BR/><BR/>Toady,<BR/><BR/>I completely agree that peple are perfectly capable of ruining their own lives let alone countries without any help from anybody. The propensity for the human instrument to dominate as soon as it becomes institutionalised is always inevitable in any society, and it starts with the control of the instrument of expansion. Before the instrument of expansion was the military, so we saw colonialism, imperialism, from all despotic empires, be it the Arabs, Ottomans, Japanese, English, Spanish etc.<BR/><BR/> In this case, the instrument of expansion (power expansion) is ‘capital’, ‘money’, ‘credit’, all synonymous, all autonomous of any real ‘state involvement’. That’s what is conventionally held in the academic sphere as ‘neo-imperialism’, which is essentially what Gaddafi ‘the madman’ is talking about.<BR/>Toady if u read my arguments previously and in other comments ( I will soon have some posts up) you will see that I do not endorse at all the standard ‘east-west’ distinction that the cultural post-modern movement keeps re-iterating (as the west being ‘evil’, despite its good will and intension, which seems to me only to help perpetuate the condition our people are in). <BR/><BR/>I sincerely believe that the majority of the people in the West and developed countries hold huge potential and merit great credence for so much of the world’s current positive development, scientific breakthroughs and intellectual advancement. <BR/><BR/>Not only that but I hold much respect for them as brothers and sisters who can spot oppression and tyranny when they see it and are still committed to reason and human rights that they do much more for democratic efforts for Arabs say, than those Arabs living with them in their countries. <BR/><BR/>Regrettably however, their voices and actions will have less and less significance as their civil liberties are slowly being eroded away in States like the US (by the establishment of the Patriot act and the civil unrest this is causing) and the UK (which has just separated it’s Home Office, to create a dedicated ministry to combating terrorism, especially, the ‘domestic’ type, which dubiously categorises any ‘agitator’ or initmidator’ as ‘enemy combatant’, i.e, not a human, not tried by court of law but marial and military law, without access to independent monitoring.<BR/>As for Chomsky (lol @ pbuh, but yes pbuu too J) he is the worlds foremost linguist so his description just happens to be handily accurate. Unlike other ‘infallible’ political officials and establishment goons however, his presentation is rooted in objective institutional anaylsis (because it is composed of systematic functions and operations). <BR/><BR/>Unlike them though he also is able to back up his analysis with continuous referencing to establishment and independent media alike, rather than take an establishment bias, which would, in all honesty, lead one to see a different view of the world than one generally encouraged to see and forget about.<BR/><BR/>Despite my own disagreement with Chomsky in some of his stances and conclusions, such as his total dismissal of the 911 commission and the HUGE collection of evidence implicating certain elements of senior US agencies’ involvement’ in the 911 tragedy I think I can find him some excuses for that.<BR/><BR/>Besides all that the is an excellent role model for a good man and advocate of human integrity.<BR/><BR/>Thank you All<BR/><BR/>Peacemanihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00850550976088353491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-9295795624947264692007-04-07T23:29:00.000+02:002007-04-07T23:29:00.000+02:00H, if he was in Iraqi custody I'm sure he was tort...H, if he was in Iraqi custody I'm sure he was tortured quite badly.programmer craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17566950406349754166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-76309795153799638822007-04-07T17:19:00.000+02:002007-04-07T17:19:00.000+02:00Nomad, I agree with you there is more than meets t...Nomad, I agree with you there is more than meets the eye to this story ... il ya quelque chose qui cloche ma chere.Highlanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16532761296990891687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-2742060866976223592007-04-07T17:14:00.000+02:002007-04-07T17:14:00.000+02:00Programmer_Craig, Iranian diplomat alleges CIA tor...Programmer_Craig, <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070407/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_diplomat" REL="nofollow">Iranian diplomat alleges CIA torture </A><BR/><BR/><I>In the report Saturday read by a newscaster, Sharafi, second secretary at the Iranian embassy in Baghdad, said he was kidnapped by agents of an Iraqi organization operating under CIA supervision and was badly tortured.<BR/><BR/>State television said signs of torture were still visible on Sharafi, who is being treated at an Iranian hospital. Images of Sharafi were not shown.</I><BR/><BR/>I know it could be a lot of BS but given the past abuses uncovered I admit by the occupation forces and where some have even gone on trial...and the bad feeling between Iran and the US since 1979 ......there must be some grain of truth in this ? what do you think ?Highlanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16532761296990891687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5760993.post-47439842866544009862007-04-07T11:07:00.000+02:002007-04-07T11:07:00.000+02:00"captive??..um.. they were 'enemy combatants'.. do...<I>"captive??..um.. they were 'enemy combatants'.. do u know what America and the UK do with THOUSANDS of 'enemy combatants'????"</I><BR/><BR/>So Mani, you're saying that we are already at war with Iran? If that's the case we really need to start making better use of those two carrier battle groups that we have floating around in the Persian Gulf. :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com