Iraq - Still, In Fact, Going On

[craner]

The entire leadership of Ahrar al-Sham, the biggest jihadi group in Syria, just got wiped out by a bomb. ISIS loving it.

 

[Leo]

Branding ISIS, ISIL, IS

To associate such brutal ferocity to the idea of branding may seem simplistic, even callous. Yet the Islamic State’s success at spreading its gospel to destroy “infidels” throughout the world involves cunning propaganda and skillful branding to convince a portion of the Islamic world that they’ll remove Islam’s enemies from their lands, while insuring the IS name is more on their target’s mind than that of its leading competitors, Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

http://www.printmag.com/daily-heller/branding-isis-isil-is/

also...

THE DIVIDENDS OF DEATH

We are becoming inured to the killing, the ice cold murderousness of the Islamists. But IS has produced something new, a way of cataloguing its murders, and communicating to the wider world. Like any company or charity or government department, it publishes annual reports.

http://www.atelierworks.co.uk/blog/the-dividends-of-death.php

ISIS Clothing For Sale As Indonesian Retailers Cash In On Iraq Crisis
http://www.ibtimes.com/isis-clothing-sale-indonesian-retailers-cash-iraq-crisis-photos-1609198

 

[Mr. Tea]

Branding ISIS, ISIL, IS


http://www.printmag.com/daily-heller/branding-isis-isil-is/

We've all seen this, right?

 

[trza]

I guess its still going on now.

 

[Leo]

The War Nerd: Let’s put Islamic State’s menacing advance into perspective by… looking at a map
http://pando.com/2014/09/28/the-war...advance-into-perspective-by-looking-at-a-map/

 

[Mr. Tea]

I expect most of you have heard about this, right?

Author and former Democratic political consultant Naomi Wolf published a series of Facebook posts on Saturday in which she questioned the veracity of the ISIS videos showing the murders and beheadings of two Americans and two Britons, strongly implying that the videos had been staged by the US government and that the victims and their parents were actors.

I can't think of a clearer example of the insidious crypto-racism inherent in the worldview of the sort of self-loathing white leftists who can't quite bring themselves to credit anyone who isn't a white Westerner (or an Israeli) with active moral agency, or to believe that mere Arabs, mere Muslims, could possibly have an agenda of their own and not just be the "puppets" or "stooges" of Washington/Westminster/Jerusalem, where the Bad Men meet to plan the future of the entire world in every minute particular.

I'd love to watch her accuse the relatives of James Foley or David Haines of being "actors" to their faces - wonder if she'd have the balls.

And as a Brucey Bonus:

Wolf published a separate Facebook post, also on Saturday, suggesting that the US was sending troops to West Africa not to assist with Ebola treatment but to bring Ebola back to the US to justify a military takeover of American society.

If that's what some shadowy branch of the US government is trying to achieve, all I can say is they're doing a *really* shit job of it. (Not that civilian life in America isn't being increasingly militarized by all accounts, particularly with regards to law enforcement - just that this seems to have been going on pretty smoothly over the last couple of decades without the assistance of an artificial Ebola pandemic.)

 

[baboon2004]

"insidious crypto-racism inherent in the worldview of the sort of self-loathing white leftists"

It's just Naomi Wolf being silly/insane, but there's no need to generalise and create a stereotype out of thin air. How does self-loathing come into this anyways? People have all kinds of motivations for doing what they do, but I don't see that objecting strongly to US foreign policy (especially in the extended Middle East, but most places really) need be anything more complex than a stance based upon quite liking humanity and not being into imperialism. 99.9% of people who object, do also understand that Isis members are acting from a series of complex motivations themselves, being human beings and all (and not the monsters daily presented to us by much of the Western press).

I was accused of being an Isis apologist last week for merely pointing out that US aims in the Middle East are based upon pursuit of global power and resource greed, and not upon human rights* (fairly obvious, given that they're happy to ignore untold abuses of rights in lots of places it's not necessary to name). I would have laughed if I hadn't been crying with frustration. Seems as self-evident to me as that isis leaders are acting out of similar motives, and not a commitment to the word of Islam.

 

[droid]

So the turks are bombing the PKK now.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Baboon -

OK, so you're aware that ISIS has arisen as a result of the complex and violent recent history of the region, in which British and American imperialism has played a huge part, and aren't simply a bunch of evil savages that exist for no reason; that such imperialism is largely self-interested (as is all imperialism, in all places and at all times); and that ISIS itself is motivated more by power for power's sake than by any deep mystical connection with Islam.

That's still a pretty bloody far cry from claiming that the entire movement is a CIA false-flag operation! Point is, there's no need to get defensive - I'm having a go at the Truther idiots, not you.

Edit: it may be a stereotype but like most stereotypes it's not based on nothing. On the contrary, rather than coming "out of thin air" it's based on many, many statements I've read or heard from many people over many years. Remember old padraig/HMLT who used to post here? Textbook case, although there have been others. It's a worldview that proceeds entirely from a conviction that "The West", whatever that is exactly, is the Great Satan and that everything bad happening, anywhere in the world and for any apparent cause, is the West's fault. That's the self-loathing part. I call it crypto-racist because basically everyone in the rest of the world, but especially the Muslim world, is assumed either to be acting in a purely reactive, deterministic way, without moral agency, or to be in on the great Western conspiracy. So it either dehumanizes them or makes them the West's puppets.

And it's just so depressingly solipsistic, it makes everything about us.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Tangentially related, but a friend of mine posted this on Facebook today:

FWIW, I think Malala Yousuzai's Nobel Peace Prize was well deserved, certainly more so than most that have been given out over the decades. Also, I think that the activists that made the British parliament's non-binding resolution on the recognition of Palestine possible deserve to be commended. To read the comments in my news feed, you'd think that Malala Yousufzai was directing a bombing campaign for NATO and that the PSC were subcontracted by the Netanyahu cabinet to pull off a stunt. There is a lot of weird nastiness in some quarters of the Left ... this is a bit sick.

Incidentally, my friend is a Palestinian and by no means a cheerleader for American foreign policy.

So yeah, I'm certainly not trying to tar all or even most people who identify as left-wing with this sort of obnoxious ultra-cynicism - but there is undeniably a pretty unpleasant current in some leftist discourse that is just so disproportionately obsessed with the absolute evil of Amerisrael is that it's forgotten about everything else. Even, apparently, to the point of being cynical about a young girl who stood up to some vile religious fascists and got shot in the head for her troubles.

 

[baboon2004]

Baboon -
Point is, there's no need to get defensive - I'm having a go at the Truther idiots, not you.

Edit: it may be a stereotype but like most stereotypes it's not based on nothing. On the contrary, rather than coming "out of thin air" it's based on many, many statements I've read or heard from many people over many years. Remember old padraig/HMLT who used to post here? Textbook case, although there have been others. It's a worldview that proceeds entirely from a conviction that "The West", whatever that is exactly, is the Great Satan and that everything bad happening, anywhere in the world and for any apparent cause, is the West's fault. That's the self-loathing part. I call it crypto-racist because basically everyone in the rest of the world, but especially the Muslim world, is assumed either to be acting in a purely reactive, deterministic way, without moral agency, or to be in on the great Western conspiracy. So it either dehumanizes them or makes them the West's puppets.

And it's just so depressingly solipsistic, it makes everything about us.

I wasn't getting defensive (!) - I was disagreeing with your use of a stereotype which isn't very helpful, based on something nuts one (famous) person has said. Does Naomi Wolf have any real power? No. So why be concerned with what she's done wrong' rather than the maniacs who do have power and are no less deluded/conspiracy theory oriented then her. And also it stereotypes the left wing in a way that is tiresome because it's the default tactic of right wing apologists every single day. Yes, what Naomi Wolf said is crazy, but way more crazy is bombing the shit out of a country that became totally fucked up because you bombed the shit out of it previously (illegally and against the wishes of millions of your citizens). Decry THOSE people's craziness, cos they run the world, not Naomi Wolf or the small number of leftist conspiracy theorists.

My second point was - why is positing everything as the West's fault (if one were to do this, for argument's sake), self-loathing? It only is if you somehow identify with 'the West', if you identify with the nation-state you happen to live in. Otherwise, it's most frequently not self-criticism, but criticising the force that has done more to fuck up the world than any other (because it got the opportunity to be the preeminent force for various contingent reasons - I quite agree the result would've been the same had the Muslim world become the predominant force in world power), and the force you get to see at work most closely on a daily basis. You might as well say that Afghan people who think the Taliban are the worst thing in the world and spend most of their time criticising them, are 'self-loathing'.

I agree that refusing to see that the Other has agency, is clearly dehumanising.

 

[baboon2004]

As to Malala, well - she herself is clearly a brave person and human rights activist who deserves to win something better than the joke that is the Nobel Peace prize.

But unfortunately, such is the awfulness of the world that there is a real tragedy - which is that her bravery and spirit is being used as a product by which to justify US imperialism. It's a fucking PR war, and the US is very good at PR - the best, really, capitalism's forte. I have a connection with all this through work - the part of my work which I try to distance myself from and work on as little as possible; the rest is better and less revolting - so I know a bit about the kind of US-sponsored PR programmes that are going on in the Middle East and subcontinent, and their quasi-religious, crypto-racist, lobotomised insanity is indistinguishable from the 'fundamentalism' (always that word, without even bothering to qualify) that they are supposedly attacking on the grounds of human rights. Laughable, given the history (and ongoing reality) of the US, but that goes without saying.

Using 'the US' as shorthand (mostly) here.

 

[baboon2004]

On a side point about this crazy PR war, this guy is obviously a complete legend*:


Shines out like a beacon, so used am I to hearing (on TV) mealymouthed and evasive horseshit masquerading as analysis.

*Reza Aslan. Young Turks is always pretty good tho in general

 

[Mr. Tea]

Does Naomi Wolf have any real power? No.

She's a high-profile figure and people listen to her. If you say she has no "real power" because she's not a politician then you could just as well say the same thing about Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly or whoever. Do the things these people say have no consequence at all?

what Naomi Wolf said is crazy, but way more crazy is bombing the shit out of a country that became totally fucked up because you bombed the shit out of it previously (illegally and against the wishes of millions of your citizens).

Now you're almost making my point for me! Iraq is dysfunctional entirely because The West bombed it, end of story. Because it was, you know, a perfectly nice liberal democracy back when Saddam was in charge.

Do you see what I mean?

You might as well say that Afghan people who think the Taliban are the worst thing in the world and spend most of their time criticising them, are 'self-loathing'.

OK, I should be more clear: it's not a personal self-loathing, more on a cultural and national level. But the comparison between the UK government and the Taliban still doesn't quite hold, as the Taliban has no democratic mandate whereas at least a large proportion of the UK's electorate has voted for parties with belligerent foreign policies (the great majority, in fact, given the similarity in policy between the three major parties).

Moreover, clearly even the most ardent critics of the Taliban haven't accused, say, the recent invasions of Afghanistan (whether by Soviet or NATO-led forces) of being false-flag operations by the Taliban itself, so there is no mirror-image equivalent to loonies like Wolf or Alex Jones who think every little insurrection, bomb plot or whatever happening anywhere in the world is a CIA/Mossad-led conspiracy.

 

[droid]

Now you're almost making my point for me! Iraq is dysfunctional entirely because The West bombed it, end of story. Because it was, you know, a perfectly nice liberal democracy back when Saddam was in charge.

Do you see what I mean?

Not to get in the middle of this, but c'mon, thats quite clearly not what he's saying. Look at the counterfactuals. If the west had not invaded and completely shattered iraqi society, you know as well as I do that the country, and the region would be far more stable, despite the lack of 'liberal democracy'.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Fine, call that a bit of hyperbole to make a point. Yes, Iraq was "stable" when Saddam was in charge. So was the USSR under Stalin. My point was that saying "Iraq is fucked up because of the invasion in '03" does rather carry an implication that it wasn't fucked up beforehand. It may in some respects have been less fucked up, but by any reasonable standard it was still pretty fucked up.

 

[droid]

Now you're being disingenuous

Yes, it was 'fucked up' beforehand, now it doesn't exist. Its a bit like saying that my car was 'fucked up' when it was totalled in a crash, exploded, fallen off a cliff and the remains have been crushed into a tiny cube, but it was also fucked up beforehand as the brake pads were worn and the steering was a bit loose.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Isn't it a bit soon to be saying Iraq no longer exists? Most of the country is still under government control, for now.

I also think you're rather underplaying the problems the country had prior to the invasion. Worn brake pads, eh!

 

[droid]

Almost every state is fucked up, but when the fundamental functions of the state collapses - basic services and security, territorial integrity, self determination (however limited) that things move onto the 'crushed into a cube' state.

Iraq has ceased to exist. The invasion destroyed its culture, economy and society. Its just taking a while for the message to reach the brain. Like those few moments after decapitation when the head can still see.

 

[baboon2004]

Not what I'm saying. To make my point clearer: people who share Naomi Wolf's opinions do not run anything/have any power beyond the verbal. People who share the opinions of the right-wing mentalists you've mentioned, do run US foreign policy. Broadly speaking.

Wow, you really do want to 'win the argument' (no, I don't see what you mean, at all). You're drawing a conclusion that doesn't follow in any way from what I said, and what's more you clearly know that. Why even bother? Clearly bombing a country to shit doesn't help its citizens any, and clearly this bombing had nothing to do with the type of regime that was there beforehand anyways.

Your point is irrelevant for someone who voted against those policies/doesn't believe in them. And how do you go from disagreeing with the foreign policy of the country you happen to live in, to loathing one's 'culture' (however you might define this), I have no idea. As if cultures are monolithic anyways.

She's a high-profile figure and people listen to her. If you say she has no "real power" because she's not a politician then you could just as well say the same thing about Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly or whoever. Do the things these people say have no consequence at all?

Now you're almost making my point for me! Iraq is dysfunctional entirely because The West bombed it, end of story. Because it was, you know, a perfectly nice liberal democracy back when Saddam was in charge.

Do you see what I mean?



OK, I should be more clear: it's not a personal self-loathing, more on a cultural and national level. But the comparison between the UK government and the Taliban still doesn't quite hold, as the Taliban has no democratic mandate whereas at least a large proportion of the UK's electorate has voted for parties with belligerent foreign policies (the great majority, in fact, given the similarity in policy between the three major parties).

Moreover, clearly even the most ardent critics of the Taliban haven't accused, say, the recent invasions of Afghanistan (whether by Soviet or NATO-led forces) of being false-flag operations by the Taliban itself, so there is no mirror-image equivalent to loonies like Wolf or Alex Jones who think every little insurrection, bomb plot or whatever happening anywhere in the world is a CIA/Mossad-led conspiracy.