Do You Support the Iraqi Resistance Movement?

[grimly fiendish]

"AFAIK we still don't know who killed [Hassan], yet several disparate resistance groups have already come out and condemned the murder."

i'd very much like to read more of this, can you (or someone) provide links?

links? links? what, you think i'm the kind of journalist who can back stuff up?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1352952,00.html ... this has the group now known as "al-Qaeda in Iraq" calling for her release rather than her murder.

this will probably interest you on a more general level:

http://salon.com/news/feature/2004/11/18/hassan/print.html

i'm sure i read a report last week in which there had been communications from groups previously linked to kidnaps etc condemning her beheading. but i don't know where, so i'll shut up now.

 

[sufi]

this article on الجزيرة lists some secular and islamic groups

مفكرة الإسلام apparently have reporters embedded with resistance fighters and provide updated reports which are syndicated to a lot of sites in translation.

as usual observer only seems to mention islamic groups - but is an interesting article on the collusion between terrorist snuff and the western meeja:

What the execution videos have done is take our technology, the spearhead of our invasion, and turned it back on us - exactly as the high-tech passenger jets that so epitomise the modern world were turned on New York.

 

[DigitalDjigit]

given that "we" brought this state of affairs about, doesn't it follow that "we" have a moral duty to try to minimise the damage? no, i don't know how that should be done - i'm not a military or economic strategist - but i don't think walking away is the answer. if we turn our backs, isn't it likely that the islamicists will focus on toppling the nascent iraqi government; that within a few months there'll be all-out civil war across the entire country?

But you could say that our presense perpetuates a state of anarchy. The Iraqi's will not stop trying to fight us and if we do not stop try to blow them up then there will never be a chance for a civil society to arise. Iraqi's will not accept any government backed by the US and the US will not accept any government they do not agree with. Our soldiers mean well, for example they clean up trash and try to set up an infrastructure. A week later it's back to what it was because both sides keep fighting.

Maybe if we withdraw and a civil war happens then it will all get sorted out and within a few years we could have some semblance of order and people could have water again. On the other hand there are many ethnic groups in Iraq and we could get an African type situation where the wars never end.

 

[dominic]

I am enjoying Kpunks take on Blair’s conviction that he is essentially good and therefore he actions must be virtuous. This is very reminiscent of Aristotle’s Man of Virtue that is of an agent centred morality. I f we want to know what a good action is we simply look at what good men do. This is, of course, circular because we have no rational means of identifying the good man/woman without reference to their actions.
When Blair’s justification for war boils down to his constant assertion that "I genuinely believe it was right" he is asking us to take this agent centred approach, to believe in his fundamental goodness and therefore to accept his actions . . . . No action centred ethical theory seems to have retained any validity amongst the masses and hence world leaders no longer need to justify their actions only to say " I am a nice person. I must be doing good". This is perhaps the necessary ethical context for the complete stupefaction of the people, stripping them of their most human means of political critique that of ethical judgement. We cannot see Blair’s 'soul'. How are we to know he is good? Politics is about judgements of actions, judgements about the virtue of individuals is religious speculation. Emperor Blair is trying to coax us into faith based politics.

I agree with the substance of Jules' and K-Punk's position in this matter. However, I disagree with Jules' reading of Aristotle. Aristotle's ethics is action-centered, not agent centered. It is Kantian ethics that is agent centered . . . . What matters, in Kant, is that a person have "good will." And Blair and Bush consider themselves men of "good will." They are men of good will because they are God's servants. And because they try to accomplish God's plan, because they will what God desires, they are necessarily good men . . . . By contrast, with Aristotle and Nietzsche a man is judged not by his moral intentions, not by what he "genuinely believes," but as "what" his actions reveal him to be . . . . Aristotle's definition of a good man is circular only because judgments about what makes a man good, noble, charming, polite, polished, classy, sophisticated, etc, etc, varies from culture to culture, location to location. Moreover, for Aristotle a "good" man is one who does things in the right way, at the right time, in the right manner. What makes the man "good" eludes language. However, his peers, his neighbors, others in his community are able to recognize him as "good" because of how he acts, his actions. His actions, his manner, the way that he speaks, the way that he writes, etc, bear some similarity to the actions of other "good" men, to the "good" men who preceded him. And how is it that the first "good" man was recognized as such???? Therein lies the circularity . . . . But again, Aristotle's ethics are about actions and appearances, not interior belief and good will

 

[dominic]

when the US becomes a province of China in ooooh about five years max.

Given the quagmire in Iraq, the rift with Germany and France, the loss of "soft" power, the decline of the dollar, the budget deficit, the trade deficit, the imminent crisis of Social Security, the growing cultural divide between North and South/urban and rural, the continued failure of Americans to master foreign languages, etcetera, etcetera, it's hard to be optimistic about America's prospects for maintaining its position as the leading power in the world. Yet in the event that America is eclipsed by China and, soon thereafter, by India, this need hardly mean that America will be reduced to a "province" of China. Only that America will cease to be the imperial center, whether in five years', ten years', or twenty years' time. America will be to China what Western Europe is to America, at least in economic and technological terms. China will never be in a position to dominate America in the way that America and Europe dominated the rest of the world for the past five centuries

 

[grimly fiendish]

The Iraqi's will not stop trying to fight us and if we do not stop try to blow them up then there will never be a chance for a civil society to arise. Iraqi's will not accept any government backed by the US

ah, but that's the problem: i don't really know what representative iraqi opinion is (and right now we have little chance of finding out). we know what the hardliners think, we know what some pro-americans think: but there's a vast, terrified majority there who might as well be invisible to the west the way our forces are ignoring what they want.

if i was genuinely convinced that a withdrawal of troops would stop the violence, then of course i'd be in favour. but i don't think it would solve the problem, merely change it - and to what? at the moment, like i say: i'm of the opinion that we caused this sorry mess, and we should stick around to try to clean it up.

 

[Jules Bonnot]

I agree with the substance of Jules' and K-Punk's position in this matter. However, I disagree with Jules' reading of Aristotle. Aristotle's ethics is action-centered, not agent centered. It is Kantian ethics that is agent centered . . . . What matters, in Kant, is that a person have "good will." ..... By contrast, with Aristotle and Nietzsche a man is judged not by his moral intentions, not by what he "genuinely believes," but as "what" his actions reveal him to be . . . . Aristotle's definition of a good man is circular only because judgments about what makes a man good, noble, charming, polite, polished, classy, sophisticated, etc, etc, varies from culture to culture, location to location.

kant provides a means of evaluating the morality of given act namely the "categorical imperative" (it a nut shell i must be able to universalise my actions without being involved in a contradiction). This is the key element around which kantian ethics revolves. The concept of will is important as it reintroduces freewill or a "noumenal" element into an otherwise causally determined world(not in a humian sense but rather as synhetic a'priori) . This allows moral agents to be held to account. kant was actually a bit of authoritarian, he certainly wanted to maintain a justification for punishment and his use of 'will' is partly motivated by this. Will is not the moral theory it is its precondition.

Aritotle by contast provides us with no robust principle by which to judge actions in several places in the "ethics" he actually states that we must observe good men in order to learn how to be good. I could give you quotes. Either way the cirularity arises out of the problem of how to identify the good man without refernce to his actions blah blah.

You mention locations and cultures. I assume you are aware that Aristotle thought non Greeks were barbarians incapable of moral agency. His concept of the good man was a objective concept and did not leave any room for a kind of cultural or moral relativism. The problem is it provides no practical help to us in our lives and ends up being empty.

Anyway the point of my post was not a historical or scholastic one but rather to show how Blairs defence of the war relates to ethical philosophy and the dangerous implications of the aristotilian doctrine to which he seems most closely affiliated.

 

[Jules Bonnot]

I agree with the substance of Jules' and K-Punk's position in this matter. However, I disagree with Jules' reading of Aristotle. Aristotle's ethics is action-centered, not agent centered. It is Kantian ethics that is agent centered . . . . What matters, in Kant, is that a person have "good will." ..... By contrast, with Aristotle and Nietzsche a man is judged not by his moral intentions, not by what he "genuinely believes," but as "what" his actions reveal him to be . . . . Aristotle's definition of a good man is circular only because judgments about what makes a man good, noble, charming, polite, polished, classy, sophisticated, etc, etc, varies from culture to culture, location to location.

kant provides a means of evaluating the morality of given act namely the "categorical imperative" (it a nut shell i must be able to universalise my actions without being involved in a contradiction). This is the key element around which kantian ethics revolves. The concept of will is important as it reintroduces freewill or a "noumenal" element into an otherwise causally determined world(not in a humian sense but rather as synhetic a'priori) . This allows moral agents to be held to account. kant was actually a bit of authoritarian, he certainly wanted to maintain a justification for punishment and his use of 'will' is partly motivated by this. Will is not the moral theory it is its precondition (Transcendental condition).

Aritotle by contast provides us with no robust principle by which to judge actions in several places in the "ethics" he actually states that we must observe good men in order to learn how to be good. I could give you quotes. Either way the cirularity arises out of the problem of how to identify the good man without refernce to his actions blah blah.

You mention locations and cultures. I assume you are aware that Aristotle thought non Greeks were barbarians incapable of moral agency. His concept of the good man was a objective concept and did not leave any room for a kind of cultural or moral relativism. The problem is it provides no practical help to us in our lives and ends up being empty.

Anyway the point of my post was not a historical or scholastic one but rather to show how Blairs defence of the war relates to ethical philosophy and the dangerous implications of the aristotilian doctrine to which he seems most closely affiliated.

 

[dominic]

i can't really discuss kant without first consulting a book. so, i'll refrain from characterizing his position. however, i think you're slighting aristotle big time. that is, i don't see how a person could read the "nicomachean ethics" and not come away with a more VIVID understanding of what courage is, what generosity is, etcetera. And so far as many of the virtues that Aristotle describes go, the account would be the same no matter time or place. But as for other aspects of what makes a person "good," from matters of style (cutlery versus chopsticks) to devotion to work/leisure (commercial versus aristocratic society) to questions of piety/intellectual honesty (religious verus post-religious world), these necessarily vary from place to place . . . . As for Aristotle's method, he begins with what people of his time and place said about courage, about generosity, etcetera, and then attempted to clarify and deepen and unfold that understanding. The same method, in this regard, as Plato's Socrates, as Hobbes, as Hegel, as Heidegger. Kant used a rather different method, abstracting from the given, the particular, the hand of chance . . . . But the basic point I was trying to make is that Aristotle's ethics is action based. This is why Aristotle discusses virtue as "habit," the habit of comporting oneself in the proper way at the proper time. Virtue as the mean between extremes . . . . And I wouldn't consider it a failure on Aristotle's part that his definition of virtue is circular. I'd call it intellectual honesty. And phenomenological richness. "Good" people come in many varieties, and they exhibit what are termed the "virtues" in various degrees and combinations. But what are called the "virtues," courage, generosity, magnamity, etc, have no existence apart from the ways that people act, speak, write, comport themselves. And it is merely out of convenience that we use the same words to describe the actions/comportment/character of different people. No two men are alike in the courage that they show, and certainly no two men are alike in the overall way that they disclose themselves to others. (And even further, no two people have the same view and understanding of any one man.) And yet that man, based upon his actions, upon his comportment, will be known as good or bad, noble or base, courageous or foolhardy or craven. People respond to the lived phenomenon that is the man's life as lived with and surrounded by others, within their view. To some he will seem "good," to others not so good . . . . And as for whether Aristotle thought only Greeks could be rational persons, or only men, I don't think that a close, sympathetic, imaginative reading of Aristotle yields this impression

 

[MBM]

ah, but that's the problem: i don't really know what representative iraqi opinion is (and right now we have little chance of finding out). we know what the hardliners think, we know what some pro-americans think: but there's a vast, terrified majority there who might as well be invisible to the west the way our forces are ignoring what they want.

if i was genuinely convinced that a withdrawal of troops would stop the violence, then of course i'd be in favour. but i don't think it would solve the problem, merely change it - and to what? at the moment, like i say: i'm of the opinion that we caused this sorry mess, and we should stick around to try to clean it up.

And all the talk about Iraq is never just about Iraq. The fear of the US is that a collapse in Iraq will further destablise the surrounding states. The real fear is the impact on the Gulf States where the bulk of the world's oil reserves lie.

All of which is striking similar to the discourse around the Domino Theory and Vietnam in the 60s/70s. And Donimo Theory was partly happened (Laos and Cambodia went communist) and partly didn't (Thailand and Indonesia didn't - altho there was a huge anti-communist purge in Indo in 1965 where the death toll amounted to a small war).

 

[MBM]

ah, but that's the problem: i don't really know what representative iraqi opinion is (and right now we have little chance of finding out). we know what the hardliners think, we know what some pro-americans think: but there's a vast, terrified majority there who might as well be invisible to the west the way our forces are ignoring what they want.

if i was genuinely convinced that a withdrawal of troops would stop the violence, then of course i'd be in favour. but i don't think it would solve the problem, merely change it - and to what? at the moment, like i say: i'm of the opinion that we caused this sorry mess, and we should stick around to try to clean it up.

And all the talk about Iraq is never just about Iraq. The fear of the US is that a collapse in Iraq will further destablise the surrounding states. The real fear is the impact on the Gulf States where the bulk of the world's oil reserves lie. Which is scant comfort to the people of Iraq.

All of which is striking similar to the discourse around the Domino Theory and Vietnam in the 60s/70s. And Domino Theory partly happened (Laos and Cambodia went communist) and partly didn't (Thailand and Indonesia didn't - altho there was a huge anti-communist purge in Indo in 1965 where the death toll amounted to a small war).

 

[Jules Bonnot]

Reply to Dominic

Virtues are the outward appearence of the good man in Aristotle. But the Golden Mean is not sufficiently prescriptive to give practical help to one who wanted to act virtuously.As Aristotle says over and over again (Niomachean Ethics) for help is this respect we must observe the good man. What you say about habits is precisly the point of this agent centred circularity. A good action is performed by a man with good habits. So without any independent (in the sense of not relying on some other knowledge of the goodness of the agent) informatiom, we have know robust means of evaluting the actions of a person. In Blair's case he tells us he is a good man and that is all we need to know. Maybe agent centred ethics worked in Greece but in todays secular world what we need is some objective moral framework by which we can attack Blair and Bush and not allow them to deflect criticism with the claim that they are righteous men of conviction.



Also the comparison between the method of Hobbes and Heidegger is horrendous. Anyway

 

[dominic]

this thread is probably dead now, but i only now had time to check this site. as regards the above comment, i was contrasting kant w/ any number of philosophers, not trying to compare hobbes to heidegger. only in the light of kant's radical abstraction away from all that is "given" do hobbes and heidegger appear similar in orientation, which was precisely my point . . . . as for the categorical imperative, i think it makes more sense as a theory of good law in modern secular socieities, not good men. the advantage of aristotle is that he shows that there are many different virtues, such that no person is apt to manifest any more than a few virtues to the extreme of excellence. that is, we encounter all different kinds of "good" men, some good for their courage, others for their wit, others for their intellect, etcetera . . . . and the courageous man need not be a smart man, and the smart man not courageous . . . . as for your comment that aristotle did not think barbarians capable of moral or political virtue, this reflects his theory of the city-state. it's a political view, not a racist view

and as for the phrase "righteous men of conviction," this is clearly the doing of Xian and Kantain ethics. the soul and the interior subject. it has nothing to do with Aristotle. Aristotle was about action, praxis. And that's why Aristotle advocated the city-state, as it allowed opportunity for men to act and speak before others about matters concerning their common destiny. if a man claimed to be a "good man" but acted like a fool, that would soon be apparent to other citizens. and in the end, it would be the other citizens, the people in front of whom he acted, who would judge him good or bad, noble or foolish, not his own internal conscience.

 

[dominic]

In any case, I don't think that Bush's actions are in any way "good." Therefore, he is not a "good" man. As for Blair, he certainly exhibits more virtues than Bush does (e.g., Blair is quite articulate and verbally resourceful). Therefore, Blair is at least a "better" man than Bush . . . . Perhaps we're talking past one another????

 

[sufi]

are we still talking about iraq
or did we get mixed up with the tonyblair thread?

 

[dominic]

very possible that I got the threads mixed up

 

[sufi]

fuckin tonyblair
he's a right pain in the arse

 

[sufi]

latest from Falluja

IRAQ: Fallujah still need more supplies despite aid arrival

[This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations]


FALLUJAH, 30 November (IRIN) - In a flood of tears, praising and thanking
God, Um Kasser, a mother of five, collected food supplies from the Iraqi
Red Crescent Society (IRCS), which was recently allowed to enter the
troubled city of Fallujah, some 60 km west of Baghdad.

"We were eating flour mixed with dirty water during those days because we
couldn't leave our homes to get food or clean water.
I felt like I was going to die holding my sons. God bless the IRCS staff
who reached us in time to save our lives," she told IRIN in Fallujah,
where the conflict between US soldiers and insurgents has raged on for
more than three weeks.

Um Kasser wasn't able to flee the city when the fighting started, saying
she thought it would be over in a few days. With a total population of
290,000 people, it is estimated that half has left the city.

Those families who stayed behind are now reeling from the effects of the
battles in the city. Many have fallen ill due to poor sanitation and dirty
drinking water as supplies were cut off, local doctors say.

A spokeswoman for the IRCS, Firdoos al-Abadi, told IRIN they have
delivered food and clean water to nearly 100 people who were able to get
to their office in Fallujah.

She said that most of the children in the town were sick and in need of
urgent medical help. Also, injured people stuck in their homes were unable
to get help as the ICRS was not allowed to distribute food due to security
issues and they were not able to move to the centre for supplies.

"It is complicated even to treat the injured people due to the curfew that
prohibits us from moving around the city. Men aged between 15 and 55 years
cannot be seen on the streets as they could be mistaken for insurgents by
US-led forces," al-Abadi added. US troops say they have enforced the rule
in the city to help maintain safety and security.

The issue of treatment for the injured is of great concern to doctors in
the area. According to officials at the main hospital across the Euphrates
river, few injured people have been treated yet. Doctors believe that many
are stuck indoors afraid to move outside because of the curfew imposed on
men.

Dr Hussam al-Jumaili told IRIN that they have been trying to get
authorisation to bring injured people to be treated in the hospital but
that US troops had refused, saying it is still not safe for them to move
around the city under the circumstances. Al-Jumaili added that the only
cases treated in the hospital were related to chronic heart disease, fever
and dehydration.

The IRCS said that their next step was to get authorisation to take
injured people out of the city. "They need help and injured people need
very urgent treatment. We hope to get this authorisation in the next
couple of days," al-Abadi added.

However, the aid organisation did have success in taking nearly 20 people,
mostly women and children, to safer areas around Fallujah.

Meanwhile, US military officials are keeping a close eye on aid deliveries
to ensure that they do not contain weapons or supplies for the insurgents,
searching vehicles entering the city.

There were signs of joy for those who managed to reach the IRCS office.
"They are happy. It is not only a health need, it is also a psychological
need to have someone to talk to when you are surrounded by dead bodies.
Some people have been subjected to trauma," al-Abadi explained.

Children who were brought by their mothers to the IRCS centre were looking
dehydrated and were suffering from skin diseases because of a lack of
water and proper hygiene. Their eyes were searching for a place of warmth
and security.

"My nephew cries every night asking God to take him with the angels, so he
doesn't have to hear the horrible explosions anymore," Salsam Omar, a
resident of Fallujah told IRIN.

Approximately 70 percent of the houses and shops were destroyed in the
city and those still standing are riddled with bullets. The heavy presence
of US tanks fills the streets.

Aid workers have even gone as far as cooking hot fresh food. Children were
very happy to receive this after nearly a month under seige. "Eating this
food is like eating it for the first time in my life. It is tasty. I thank
God," Omar told IRIN after receiving her fresh food parcel from an IRCS
staff member.

According to officials, a convoy carrying aid, which includes 200 tents,
1,000 blankets, 500 pillows, foodstuffs, drinking water, medicine and
soap, left the main office in Baghdad on Tuesday morning bound for
Fallujah, but much more is required to guarantee safety and health to
civilians in the city.

"It's a good start in the meantime. We hope that in the coming days this
partnership can be done on a greater level and all people in Fallujah and
outside it receive help. But it will take time to repair the damaged
buildings," Lt Col Ed Ramos, a US marine official, told IRIN in Fallujah.

from unon

 

[craner]

Political snubs also continue. John Negroponte, the United States ambassador to Iraq, has refused to meet with Ahmad Chalabi. Chalabi may not have survived the interagency battles in Washington, but he has excelled in the Iraqi political arena and has emerged as a leading figure on Sistani's list of Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish candidates. Professional American diplomats and intelligence analysts may approve the snub, but Iraqis say it strikes them as petulant and unprofessional.

Senior American diplomats and National Security Council staff may describe Allawi as Iraq's Hamid Karzai, but he has proven himself anything but. Allawi promised security, but delivered corruption. He ingratiated himself to Bremer, former CIA chief George Tenet, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice by telling them what they wanted to hear rather than telling them what they needed to hear.

Michael Rubin.

http://www.nationalreview.com/rubin/rubin200501070750.asp

 

[craner]

You can't keep Chalabi down. That's a better thing than you lot would ever admit.