Iraq: wave of bomb attacks 'kill 84'

12 posts / 0 new

Iraq: wave of bomb attacks 'kill 84'

A wave of bombings across Iraq has killed 84 people and injured nearly 300 in the deadliest day in the country since US troops withdrew last year.

When you break a country, how long does your indemnity period last for what you've done? Is there a moral indemnity period? Probably not for sociopaths.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

Comments

Quote .ren:

Iraq: wave of bomb attacks 'kill 84'

A wave of bombings across Iraq has killed 84 people and injured nearly 300 in the deadliest day in the country since US troops withdrew last year.

When you break a country, how long does your indemnity period last for what you've done? Is there a moral indemnity period? Probably not for sociopaths.

Has nothing to do with "breaking" a country. We broke Gemany. Italy, Japan and many others in our history. They didn't continue to randomly murder afterward.

This was a religious attack. Shites killing Sunnis. Religious violence is not uncommon in the Muslim world. Most of the wars being fought today involve a Muslim country who cannot tolerate it's neighbor.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am
Quote rigel1:

Has nothing to do with "breaking" a country. We broke Gemany. Italy, Japan and many others in our history. They didn't continue to randomly murder afterward.

This was a religious attack. Shites killing Sunnis. Religious violence is not uncommon in the Muslim world. Most of the wars being fought today involve a Muslim country who cannot tolerate it's neighbor.

Your sad and typically denialist arguments are apples and oranges, as one might expect. Not to mention one paragraph contradicts the other. In one the violence is random, in the other it's Muslim religious intolerance. I could say much less kind things.

Instead I'll just point out that a criminal administration of the United States, which happened to be neoconservative-influenced Republican at the time, used the shock of 9/11 to perpetrate an attack Iraq. It was a war crime. Neoconservative Republicans aren't the only ones to blame. It was a national crime. The uncivilized and barbaric intentions behind it can be swept under the rug but they are there, just the same. Sad to be part of a nation that remains in perpetual arrested adolescence.

It was also obvious to any sane thinking person at the time (too few, I'm afraid, where it counts) that there was no real need for a military defense of the United States and its people involved in that costly preemptive attack. In a civilized world, war crimes would have consequences. In a less civilized world those generally only come about when a nation loses, as Germany did. In a perfect Machiavellian universe that the neoconservatives aspire to, there is no effective international court to take the national perps to task, so national bullies with the biggest militaries go free from their criminal carnage, unless their own nation wants to do something about it. In this case, ours doesn't. After all, too many patriots let it happen. Too few of us could stop it.

The U.S. effectively broke the stability of the political regime that was keeping a lid on all these regional tensions as they play out in a defined area (Iraq) that did not create its own boundaries, a region which also has a long history of Euro/American intervention, such as the U.S. intervention that overthrew the Iranian people's elected democratic government in 1953, over British claims on their nationalized oil at the time, with consequences we are living with today. Going back further, to the geographic boundary-drawing by the League of Nations that created modern Iraq in 1920, Iraq was visited upon with a British-controlled monarchy. Eventually that evolved to a primarily transregional Sunni-based (Syrian and Iraqi) Baath party control of a mostly Shiite nation -- as Shiites predominantly live in a region that was once the historically rich Persia, interchangeably today called Iran, all surrounded mostly by a majority of Sunnis.

Sunnis and Shiites have differences that go back centuries, but they do work them out in their own cultural ways, kind of like Europeans and Americans in theirs, with their various World Wars with brief interludes. That is, until outside parties intervene. Into this delicate balance blundered the Americans once again. In this case the U.S. decided to stick its nose where it doesn't belong for utterly dubious though obviously selfish reasons -- most likely because Iraq's belligerent leader, once a U.S. pawn before Sr. Bush's regime stabbed him in the back (taking H.W.'s son's Silverado Savings escapades off the front pages) by suckering Hussein into the First Gulf War, switched from the dollar to euros for oil, but that's hardly ever mentioned in the litany of coverups and excuses for the good cause of bringing democracy to the Middle East, or whatever one favors.

If we want to continue to follow the Carter Doctrine and control the precious oil resources in that region for ourselves, then you'd think, if you were a moral, responsible human being, we ought to pay for all the consequences of our actions. But thanks to the unethical and immoral amongst us who seem to be in charge, we won't. And there's always good ol' American Exceptionalism to cover their asses. Meanwhile the world remains a barbarian's paradise.

Quote Rigel1:

Religious violence is not uncommon in the Muslim world. Most of the wars being fought today involve a Muslim country who cannot tolerate it's neighbor.

Ah yes, in its most unrefined form that's an ordinary culturally-biased misrepresentation of the reality in the culturally rich Middle East. Not a whole lot of evolution in that attitude from the Europeans and their understanding of "savages" here in the U.S. (some have tried to make compensatory sense of that, here's one effort Savagism and Civilization). To simply call such views ignorant would almost be a compliment. But there's a deeply inherent violence in such attitudes that can never be overcome by "civilizing" a people who think they are civilizing the world. Or, as Ghandi supposedly said when a reporter asked what he thought about Western Civilization as he struggled to free India from British control, "It would be a good idea."

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

Wait, you mean that the revolution is still ongoing?

You mean we cannot trust violent warlords who use tribalism and religion to motivate followers to blow up civilians for genocial reasons?!

Wow, what is this world coming to?

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

Excellent reply .ren, my thoughts exactly. I wish that I possessed the writing skills and discipline to convey my thoughts as well as you do. Oh well, it's the thought that counts, right?

Since my teen years (70’s) I've struggled with the feelings of patriotism for my country.(USA) My struggle has ended due to the atrocities of the past decade committed by the country in which I reside. I feel like a man without a country. I suspect these feelings gnaw at most all of our citizens hearts, whether they will admit it or not. It seems the more damage we inflict on other parts of the world, the more we inflict upon ourselves.

(The quote from Ghandi is golden)

anti-Republicon
Joined:
Aug. 21, 2011 10:37 pm

I know how you feel, anti You speak from the heart, that's what matters. That's what can separate you from others, but it's not by your doing. I've met many fine human beings and when I do, I don't have that feeling of being a outsider, which, like you, I feel much of the time. But then there are all these people born with the potential to become fully realized human beings... born with the gift of language... And they're just blundering around like they're blind, and they think language is a weapon system. Unfortunately they don't just harm themselves.

By the way, writing is just an outsider's desperate attempt to keep track of whether he's still able to be human or not. There are probably better ways to do that. I'm working on building local community. I think that's better.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am
Quote .ren:
Quote Rigel1:

Religious violence is not uncommon in the Muslim world. Most of the wars being fought today involve a Muslim country who cannot tolerate it's neighbor.

Ah yes, in its most unrefined form that's an ordinary culturally-biased misrepresentation of the reality in the culturally rich Middle East. Not a whole lot of evolution in that attitude from the Europeans and their understanding of "savages" here in the U.S. (some have tried to make compensatory sense of that, here's one effort Savagism and Civilization). To simply call such views ignorant would almost be a compliment. But there's a deeply inherent violence in such attitudes that can never be overcome by "civilizing" a people who think they are civilizing the world. Or, as Ghandi supposedly said when a reporter asked what he thought about Western Civilization as he struggled to free India from British control, "It would be a good idea."

I'm gald you mentioned Ghandi. In many Muslim countries he would be be-headed

ren: I won't post an opinion regarding this. But I will post the facts. So the bombings in Iraq are the fault of the US? These acts were not commited by Hateful, homicidal Islamic maniacs? I ask you this: If you lived in a country at war and the occuying country left, would you repond by bombing your neighbors? No dude. Stop making excuses for murder.

Here are the facts: The facts are not "anti Islam" They are merely pro truth. If you do the research you will find that Muslims are nearly always the aggressor.

Of The 22 World Conflicts Around The World, 21 are Muslim

MUSLIM CONFLICTS AROUND THE WORLD

Current conflicts and wars: Source: http:/www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm

Some of the world’s current “hot spots” which have as their base a significant component of religious intolerance are listed below:

Country and Main religious groups involved

  • 1. Afghanistan Extreme radical Fundamentalist Muslim terrorist groups & non-Muslim Osama bin Laden heads a terrorist group called Al Quada (The Source) whose headquarters were in Afghanistan.
  • 2. Bosnia Serbian Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholic, Muslims
  • 3. Cote d’Ivoire Muslims, Indigenous, Christians
  • 4. Cyprus Christians & Muslims
  • 5. East Timor Christians & Muslims
  • 6. Indonesia, province of Ambon Christians & Muslims
  • 7. Kashmir Hindus and Muslims
  • 8. Kosovo Serbian Orthodox Christians, Muslims
  • 9. Kurdistan Christians, Muslims Assaults on Christians (Protestant, Chaldean Catholic & Assyrian Orthodox). Bombing campaign underway.
  • 10. Macedonia Macedonian Orthodox Christians & Muslims
  • 11. Middle East Jews, Muslims, &Christians
  • 12. Nigeria Christians, Animists, & Muslims
  • 13. Pakistan Suni & Shi’ite Muslims
  • 14. Philippines Christians & Muslims
  • 15. Russia, Chechnya Russian Orthodox Christians, Muslims. The Russian army attacked the breakaway region. Muslims had allegedly blown up buildings in Moscow. Many atrocities have been alleged.
  • 16. Serbia, province of Vojvodina Serbian Orthodox & Roman Catholics
  • 17. Sri Lanka Buddhists & Hindus Tamils
  • Additional conflicts
  • 19. Thailand: Pattani province: Buddhists and Muslims
  • 20. Bangladesh: Muslim-Hindu (Bengalis) and Buddhists (Chakmas)
  • 21. Tajikistan: intra-Islamic conflict

Just some useful information for those who think that Islamo-Fascists are peaceniks and the world’s conflicts are all due to American, or even British foreign policy.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am

All so-called "facts" are subject to interpretation, or they simply exist inert, in a meaningless vacuum. Most "facts" were gathered through a screen of subjective interpretation that makes them seem to be "facts". Someone had to ask a subjective question to even wonder about gathering a "fact" in the first place, and then, through the screen of that subjective world view, search the universe to find subjectively selected data to come up with the conclusion that's then called a "fact". Statistics is the gathering of information in this fashion. What's generally missing from statistics about human beings in particular is the humans themselves, the context of their lives, the meanings of words to them. All that's converted through mathematical formulas into something devoid of humanity. The rational mind then constructs something machine-like from that.

Your own interpretation of "facts" will reveal your humanity. I don't need to comment on that. You'll reveal yourself to anyone interested in observing you through your interpretations.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am
Quote .ren:

All so-called "facts" are subject to interpretation, or they simply exist inert, in a meaningless vacuum. Most "facts" were gathered through a screen of subjective interpretation that makes them seem to be "facts".

Your own interpretation of "facts" will reveal your humanity. I don't need to comment on that. You'll reveal yourself to anyone interested in observing you through your interpretations.

They are not my facts. They are simply facts. You are free to do your own research to confirm. In most of these wars, Muslim demands are being made. There is not a whole heluva lot to interpret. Yesterday in Iraq 28 more were blown up as they were making a religious pilgrimage. I'm guessing that this was the fault of the U.S. as well? We pissed them off so much that they have no recourse other than to slaughter each other? Making excuses for murder might reveal a little about YOUR humanity.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am
Quote rigel1:

They are not my facts. They are simply facts. You are free to do your own research to confirm. In most of these wars, Muslim demands are being made. There is not a whole heluva lot to interpret. Yesterday in Iraq 28 more were blown up as they were making a religious pilgrimage. I'm guessing that this was the fault of the U.S. as well? We pissed them off so much that they have no recourse other than to slaughter each other? Making excuses for murder might reveal a little about YOUR humanity.

This was my question:

Quote .ren:

When you break a country, how long does your indemnity period last for what you've done? Is there a moral indemnity period? Probably not for sociopaths.

Well, again, your facts are simply random, inert facts until someone gathers them, and then someone like you interprets them. Then rises for some reason of your own to make an argument using them, pretending they are "objective" reality. At that point you do own them. That's simply an unavoidable existential "fact" of its own that all pretentious "objective" rationalists successfully avoided until people like Wittgenstein finally pulled back fallacious curtain of objectivity. Unless of course you are merely a machine programmed to respond to key words. Otherwise, if you are a human being, you've merely revealed yourself by choosing the facts you've chosen and presenting them in the way that you have. That's your choice, thus your exposure. By then turning to project onto me the usual right wing talking point charges that anyone can typically find at right wing propaganda sources like Faux Cable News and Townhall.com, that we can find originating from mass propagandists like Frank Luntz and Karl Rove, and that we can trace as they permeate through the listeners and readers of such sources -- well, that won't change any of your own self revelations in the matter. And those are your choices, not mine.

What do such revelations ultimately mean? I guess that's up to each of us to decide. I'm merely asking questions about national responsibility and I suppose by extension the citizens and their own sense of responsibility for their nation's actions. I suppose such questions also involve issues of patriotism, independence of thought and other trivial matters that are part of the make-up of a nation's people and their character.

My one post on the history of U.S. involvement in the region is a small sample of my take on what the U.S. has intentionally and consistently done in that region that in no way compares to what any defined nation there has done to the U.S, none of which have a military force that even remotely compares to the the one the U.S. has today. Nobody has to ask these questions. But I ask them, anyway. There is no international judge and jury involved here. Just my evaluation of national and individual moral responsibility. I asked them when I was in Vietnam as little more than a kid. A few people responded with actual violence to my audacity to ask questions, and so I've had to physically defend myself. It doesn't stop me from questioning. There are those who don't like to question their own morality. I know that. So far I've survived. It has its benefits. I understand a lot more about hegemony and coercion in a nation now. How it actually takes place in a culture.

Therefore, as a citizen, who supposedly legitimizes my government by voting for those who make decisions, by even taking part in them, I embrace the moral imperative of making judgements about what my nation does, and its effects.

From my point of view, my country does not have the moral authority of self defense when it preemptively invades a nation (Iraq) in the Middle East, to act through its CIA intentionally as a disruptive regime changer (Iran) simply because that nation's democratically elected regime decides to nationalize its oil. If we stay out of it altogether, what any given nation and its people do is their business, not the business of the political decision makers of the United States, and we who legitimize them. That is, until the United States as a political entity, a nation, starts messing with their lives in the most of horrendous of ways.

Therefore the question arises, if we intrude, where do the networks of domino effects end for our intrusion, for our stirring up of snakes in the pit and all that results? Where does responsibility for our actions end? Well, we know the answer to that for certain personality types, the psychopaths and the sociopaths amongst us

The historically most murderous and destructive of ways of intrusion have been through invasion and acts of war. And by the linguistic trick of calling it "war" the act of national conscience moves from recognizing its actions as international criminality to passing them off as internationally geopolitical. It's what nations do, after all, unless controlled by some sort of externally enforceable rule structure, like what corporations do to the environment, with unfortunate externalities like collateral damage -- like, "sorry about that, here's a few bucks for the 27 people at the wedding party we just slaughtered with our drone missiles." Like, we'll just ignore the millions of human beings we've displaced, whose homes we've destroyed, whose fragile personal relationships we've disrupted, whose networks of communities we've demolished. We'll give them the gift of our civilized democracy and move on. And history indicates that the United States has done these things. And we have doctrines (The Carter Doctrine, for instance) that proclaim it is our right to do them in our interests.

Do I agree with what the elites in the U.S. have perpetrated? No. Do I agree with any such criminal acts? No. Am I a part of it by owning property, paying taxes and voting? I guess so. I'm still trying to figure out how much.

Am I personally responsible when I don't agree with what those who I'm told I've legitimized in my political structure do? Was I morally responsible for Vietnam? I even took an active part. Yes, there was a draft, but I did not refuse to serve and thereby go to jail and suffer the lifelong consequences of that stain. I considered it. But I didn't. So I chose. What's my moral obligation at that point? I allowed myself to follow orders, I chose, so by default I'm responsible, that's how I see it. I'll say one thing, I'm sure as hell not making excuses for myself for what I took part in and what I still feel personally was a wrong. But as an intimate part of my own conscience, I see how people act with that weight coming down on them. And my own choices in life change. My own sense of morality evolves.

Am I making excuses for the insanity that results from the criminal acts of war my own nation perpetrates? Well, I try to understand insanity. I need to understand. I went to the trouble of studying all forms of culture and what human culture and society is about in my efforts to understand what results when a nation sends its military into another nation. Whether I fully understand insanity or not, I can't say. But I made at least that much effort.

What I'm left wondering is when and where do those in a nation who pretty much all repeat such Luntz/Rovian framed conclusions as: "Making excuses for murder might reveal a little about YOUR humanity" show any effort to achieve insights of their own? Or are those really their insights? If so, what are those insights that they reveal really about? I'm left wondering... do they even question what the authorities of their nation do when they go to war and what national responsibility results? Who's making excuses for what murders here? "My nation's always right and I'm not responsible no matter what?" "They're just a bunch of murderous Muslim religious fanatics so I'm not responsible?" Something like that? War is the force that gives us meaning? Or are they simply the authoritarian followers that social scientists like Robert Altemeyer have demonstrated, with their own selective and selectively interpreted facts, them to be? I'm just wondering is all.

I'm seeing the historical horror of what nations do to other nations and peoples, and I'm just wondering. And I guess my wondering bothers some people. Sorry about that.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

Sectarian violence of course does occur and is a factor to be aware of, but it is largely a frame imposed upon the interpretation of events by westerners. In Syria for example, some Kurds advocate for Syria to be split up according to ethnicity. Many Kurds still have nationalist ambitions. But as in Iraq, there are also some Kurds loyal to the regime, and Turkey worries about conflict spilling across their borders. The article I read about this stated that "even" within the Alawite community (from which Assad hails) there are splits. The use of that word "even" shows how the frame operates. Although within each community there are multiple divisions, none of which are themselves usually the prime driver of individual's leadership designs, many people cannot avoid analyzing the situation according to these broad social categories.

The Baath party actually is a pan-Arab party. That's the last thing the "gamers" want to see. Now that Gadhafi is out of the way, there is no pan-Africanist force for Africom to contend with. Elections have been delayed, and Libya is now one of those countries where a dozen or so people a week get blown up. The difference is that so far the United States has not been doing the blowing up as it has in Yemen and Pakistan for example. How things will turn out is difficult to say. What forces are at work is hard to discern. But if competition for peak-oil disrupts the ability to extract it, arctic oil will become more valuable. On the other hand, keeping a lid on the forces we have released becomes a convenient excuse to protect "our" assets and interests.

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Nimblecivet, I believe what you are referring to are variants and details of the geopolitics and geostrategies involved in the "Strategic Elipse" as scholars like Juan Cole refer to that area.

Control of the Strategic Ellipse

One interpretation of current events is to envision a US imperial desire and intent to “control the Strategic Ellipse.”

An example of this line of reasoning:

“If you want to know what is really going on, it is a struggle for control of the Strategic Ellipse, which just happens demographically to be mostly Muslim. Bush has to demonize the Muslim world in order to justify his swooping down on the Strategic Ellipse. If demons occupy it, obviously they have to be cleared out in favor of Christian fundamentalists or at least Texas oilmen. And what is the Strategic Ellipse?”

Juan Cole “Informed Comment”

or this:

Bush Turns to Fear-Mongering
Creation of "Islamic" Bogeyman

from Juan Cole

<snip>
"The Bush administration has the misfortune to have no powerful enemies it is brave enough actually to take on. China and Russia are not exactly enemies any more, and are the only potential state challengers to United States freedom of action as the sole superpower. And they don't go beyond potential. Too busy making money while Washington bleeds itself dry with military adventures. Waiting in the wings to pick up the pieces."

<snip>
"If you want to know what is really going on, it is a struggle for control of the Strategic Ellipse, which just happens demographically to be mostly Muslim. Bush has to demonize the Muslim world in order to justify his swooping down on the Strategic Ellipse. If demons occupy it, obviously they have to be cleared out in favor of Christian fundamentalists or at least Texas oilmen. And what is the Strategic Ellipse?"

Voila.

Juan Cole and the Strategic Ellipse

That geostrategy is oil based, as you note, after all, what takes place there can effect the plundering of the Arctic (or the Gulf of Mexico, or the sensitive envrionment containing shale oil of Canada, for that matter) as a result of what is taking place now that we are at the peak of easy to extract cheap oil. Peak Oil means that the overall EROI is dropping and the costs are rising, and now the oil driven modern economies of our species must begin the competition for the more expensive geological pockets as it attempts to maintain its current systems of survival.

The End Game may be beyond that, unfortunately. It may be implicit as a byproduct achievement of our own destruction as a species. A game we cannot win as a species but we are playing it nevertheless. If that's true, how can we as member of one of the most powerful player nation in this global game, effect our nation's behavior in any way? Possibly even change the global end game? The question of national morality I've raised may not change that endgame, but it would certainly not hurt anything if we did not excuse ourselves for the calamities we stir up in this world systems chess game. Perhaps karma is more real and more powerful than we as a species are willing to acknowledge.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

Currently Chatting

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system